8151. Action to enjoin and restrain the interstate shipment of adulterated candy. 
U. S. v. McGraw Candy Co. and Francis D. McMahon and Walter W. 
Craw.   Tried to the court.   Injunction granted.    (Inc. No. 38.)
COMPLAINT FILED: December 23, 1942, Southern District of Alabama, against 
the McGraw Candy Co., Mobile, Ala., and Francis D. McMahon and Walter W. 
Craw, employees of the company.
NATTJKE OF CHARGE : From on or about October 28,1942, to the time the complaint 
was filed, the defendants had been preparing, packing, processing, and other- 
wise manufacturing, and offering for interstate shipment and shipping in inter- 
state commerce, candy that was adulterated in the following manner: Section 
402 (a) (3), the product consisted in whole or in part of a filthy substance by 
reason of the presence of rodent pellets and rodent urine; and, Section 402 (a) 
(4), it had been prepared, packed, and held under insanitary conditions whereby 
it may have become contaminated with filth and may have been rendered 
injurious to health.
PRAYER OF COMPLAINT: That a preliminary injunction issue, restraining the 
defendants from commission of the acts complained of; and that, after due 
proceedings, the preliminary injunction be made permanent.
DISPOSITION: December 23, 1942. The defendants were ordered to show cause 
why a preliminary injunction should not issue as prayed; and the matter hav- 
ing been heard before the court, a temporary restraining order was issued on 
December 28, 1942. On January 9,1943, a hearing was had on the merits and 
on the Government's motion to make the temporary order permanent. On 
October 2,1943, the court entered the following findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and order permanently enjoining the defendants from the commission of 
the acts complained of: 
MCDUFFIE, District Judge:
FINDINGS OF FACT
"The structure within which the defendants have manufactured their prod- 
ucts, is not and cannot be made rat proof. Efforts have been made by the Com- 
pany to eliminate the rats that made the premises unsanitary. The structure 
is very old, and in order to make it conform to the suggestions of the agents of 
the government, or its Bureau seeking to enforce the provisions of the Pure 
Food Laws, it would be necessary to practically reconstruct the building. Such 
an expense is not justified because of the volume of business done. Second, 
candy manufactured and shipped, contained rat hairs and rat excreta, and 
the conditions under which the candy was manufactured are found not to be 
in compliance with the rules and regulations of the authorities of the govern- 
ment. Third, for several months the Company has not shipped its products 
in Interstate Commerce, and has in that respect complied with the restraining 
order of this Court of December 28, 1942. Fourth, the owner or proprietor of 
this Company involved, is now and has been for many months in the armed 
service of the United States, and was in such service when this action was 
filed.  He is therefore not personally responsible for any failure of the Company
?See also Nos. 8270, 8284.
and it has been impossible for hereto give his personal supervision to his Com- 
pany here involved, and the officers and employees have endeavored to improve 
the sanitation of the building within the limitations fixed because of the costs 
involved.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
"This Court has jurisdiction of this cause, and believing that the premises 
involved cannot be constructed so as to comply with the rules and regulations 
of the Department of the government herein interested, the preliminary in- 
junction heretofore granted, should now be made permanent.
ORDER OF THE COURT
"IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ALLEGED and DECREED that the Candy Company, 
its officers, representatives, agents, servants and. employees, be, and they are 
permanently enjoined and restrained from shipping in Interstate Commerce 
in violation of Section 331(a) and Section 342 (a) (3) and (4) Title 21, United 
States Code, adulterated candy, prepared or processed or manufactured within 
the premises on which the business of the defendant is now operated."