that there was reasonable cause of seizure, the claimant is not entitled to costs.2 23

In a proper case, a libel of review may be filed by the owner of the property forfeited when the proceeds of the sale are still in the registry of the court, and the forfeiture was ordered through a mistake of facts.24

§ 607. Seizures under Pure Food and Drugs Act. The Pure Food and Drugs Act provides: "That any article of food, drug, or liquor that is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this Act, and is being transported from one State, Territory, District, or insular possession to another for sale, or, having been transported, remains unloaded, unsold, or in original unbroken packages, or if it be sold or offered for sale in the District of Columbia or the Territories, or insular possessions of the United States, or if it be imported from a foreign country for sale, or if it is intended for export to a foreign country, shall be liable to be proceeded against in any District court of the United States within the district where the same is found, and seized for confiscation by a process of libel for condemnation. And if such article is condemned as being adulterated or misbranded, or of a poisonous or deleterious character, within the meaning of this Act, the same shall be disposed of by destruction or sale, as the said court may direct, and the proceeds thereof, if sold, less the legal costs and charges, shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States, but such goods shall not be sold in any jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of this Act or the laws of that jurisdiction: Provided, however, That upon the payment of the costs of such libel proceedings and the execution and delivery of a good and sufficient bond to the effect that such articles shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to the provisions of this Act, or the laws of any State, Territory, District, or insular possession, the court

23 U. S. R. S., § 970. The costs which accrued after the compromise of a criminal prosecution were charged against the claimant upon the consequent dismissal of the libel for the forfeiture of the property used in connection therewith when he had failed to file a supplemental

answer immediately after such compromise and to procure a speedy determination of the questions thereby raised. U. S. v. One FivePassenger Ford Automobile, 263 Fed. 241.

24 U. S. v. One Case Chemical Compound, 203 Fed. 63.

may by order direct that such articles be delivered to the owner thereof. The proceedings of such libel cases shall conform, as near as may be, to the proceedings in admiralty, except that either party may demand trial by jury of any issue of fact joined in any such case, and all such proceedings shall be at the suit of and in the name of the United States." Other sections are previously quoted.2

It is not essential to the forfeiture of the goods that their owner or shipper should have been guilty of a misdemeanor under a previous section of the act. It has been said: "Such articles are liable to seizure and forfeiture under section 10: (1) When in the course of being transported from State to State; (2) when, having been transported, they remain (a) unloaded, or (b) unsold, or (c) in the original packages." The opening of the packages for the removal of samples in order to test their strength, quality and purity, does not constitute a breaking of the original packages within the meaning of the act. An article is not subject to forfeiture unless, at the time of its seizure, it is in the condition forbidden by the statute; although it may, during a previous period of its transportation between two States, have been adulterated or misbranded."

When a district attorney acts upon evidence furnished by a State health officer and when he institutes the proceedings upon his own initiative, no investigation or hearing by the Department is necessary. No seizure by the marshal is essential to the institution of the proceedings for a forfeiture.❞ The marshal has no authority to make a seizure prior to the com

8 607. 1 Act of June 30, 1906, 34 St. at L. 768, § 10, Pierce Code, § 4138.

2 Supra, § 506m.

3 U. S. v. Five Boxes of Asafoetida, 181 Fed. 561, 564.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., 181 Fed. 561, 567. 6 Ibid.

7 U. S. v. Morgan, 222 U. S. 274; U. S. v. Twenty Cases of Grape Juice, C. C. A., 189 Fed. 331, 334. 8 U. S. v. Morgan, 222 U. S. 274,

56 L. ed. 198; reversing 181 Fed. 587; overruling U. S. v. Twenty Cases of Grape Juice, C. C. A., 189 Fed. 331; U. S. v. Nine Barrels of Ólives, 179 Fed. 983. See, also, U. S. v. Fifty Barrels of Whiskey, 165 Fed. 966; U. S. v. Sixty-five Casks Liquid Extracts, 170 Fed. 449, aff'd C. C. A., 175 Fed. 1022, 99 C. c. A. 661; U. S. v. Seventy-Five Boxes of Alleged Pepper, 198 Fed. 934.

9 U. S. v. George Spraul & Co., C. C. A., 185 Fed. 405.

mencement of the proceedings. 10 The statute does not authorize a seizure by a private person at any time.11

The proceedings are purely statutory and are not within the admiralty jurisdiction of the court although the practice in the court of first instance, 12 except at the trial,18 which must be by jury,14 is analogous to the admiralty practice.15 Criminal proceedings may be instituted by an information, instead of by an indictment.16

The libel need not allege any previous examination by the Department.17 It must specifically charge that the property had been transported from one State, Territory, District, or insular possession to another for sale.18 In case of misbranding, it must set forth the facts inconsistent with the brand used,19 and, in the case of adulteration, the nature of the same.20 It is not fatally defective for a failure to allege the date of the shipment.2 21 A libel is not defective for failure to charge that

10 U. S. v. Two Barrels of Desiccated Eggs, 185 Fed. 302; U. S. v. George Spraul & Co., C. C. A., 185 Fed. 405.

11 U. S. v. Two Barrels of Desiccated Eggs, 185 Fed. 302.

12 Supra, § 606. 13 Supra, § 582.

14 U. S. v. George Spraul & Co., C. C. A., 185 Fed. 405.

15 Four Hundred and Forty-three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. U. S., 226 U. S. 172, 57 L. ed. -; U. S. v. Two Barrels of Desiccated Eggs, 185 Fed. 302. In such case the only pleas allowable are those in abatement, in bar, or the general issue. U. S. v. J. L. Hopkins & Co., 228 Fed. 173.

16 U. S. v. J. Lindsay Wells Co., 186 Fed. 248. Leave to file an information was denied in a doubtful case where the accused had had no previous notice of the decision of the Department and no opportunity to change their labels accordingly. U. S. v. Schurman, 177 Fed. 581. (a) As to judicial notice, see

supra, § 329a. As to indictment, see supra, § 506m.

17 U. S. v. Morgan, 181 Fed. 587, aff'd 222 U. S. 274, 56 L. ed. 198, an indictment.

18 U. S. v. Forty-six Packages and Bags of Sugar, 183 Fed. 642.

66

19 U. S. v. Six Hundred and Fifty Cases of Tomato Catsup, 166 Fed 773; U. S. v. St. Louis Coffee & Spice Mills, 189 Fed. 191. In a charge of misbranding tomato catsup, it is insufficient to aver that said catsup is made in part from tomato pulp screened from peelings and cores, as the offal of tomato canning factories, and not from choice ripe tomatoes, granulated sugar, and selected high grade spices, grain vinegar, as stated in said labels." U. S. v. Six Hundred and Fifty Cases of Tomato Catsup, 166 Fed. 773.

20 U. S. v. St. Louis Coffee & Spice Mills, 189 Fed. 191, an information.

21 U. S. v. Two Barrels of Desiccated Eggs, 185 Fed. 302.

articles of food have been transported for sale.22 A want of a sufficient verification is no ground for exception or demurrer to the substance of the libel.23

The proceedings can be reviewed only by writ of error and not by appeal.24

No injunction will be granted against an act in pursuance of the statute.25

22 U. S. v. 300 Cans of Frozen Eggs, C. C. A., 189 Fed. 351, holding that a consignment by the ship per to himself is forbidden by the

act.

23 U. S. v. Two Barrels of Desiccated Eggs, 185 Fed. 302, 307.

24 Four Hundred and Forty-three

Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. U. S., 226 U. S. 172; U. S. v. Hudson Mfg. Co., C. C. A., 200 Fed. 956, where the libel was dismissed after a trial without a jury.

25 Shawnee Milling Co. v. Temple, 179 Fed. 517.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

BANKRUPTCY.

§ 608. Courts of bankruptcy and their jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction in bankruptcy is vested in the District courts of the United States in the several States,1 the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia,2 the District courts of the several Territories, The District Court, in the District of Alaska, The District Court of Porto Rico, and The District Court of Hawaii; all of which are courts of bankruptcy.

The Bank

ruptcy Act expressly invests them, "within their respective territorial limits as now established, or as they may be hereafter changed, with such jurisdiction at law and in equity as will enable them to exercise original jurisdiction in bankruptcy proceedings, in vacation in chambers and during their respective terms, as they are now or may be hereafter held, to (1) adjudge persons bankrupt who have had their principal place of business, resided or had their domicile within their respective territorial jurisdictions for the preceding six months, or the greater portion thereof, or who do not have their principal place of business, reside, or have their domicile within the United States, but have property within their jurisdiction, or who