?09 U.S. Opi?on of th? Co?t. and that the activity of said Arthur C. Bird to prevent the sale of said brands of syrups is caused by the malicious de- sire on the part of Arthur C. Bird to ruin your orators' business in the State of Michigan." It is further alleged.that "the crusade against'said brands of syrups" is conducted by appellee and his food inspectors, acting under his direction, by visiting all grocers, merckants and dealers in the Syrups, and informing them that by selling said syrups they would subject themselves to criminal prosecu- tion. And that it has been the custom and practice of appellees since the shipment of the syrups to the State to write numerous letters to dealers in the State, warning them that the syrups were .illegally labeled, and directing them to return all such syrups to appellants, and directing such dealers to make prompt reply "as to what course they had pursued in relation to said syrups," and what action they had taken to return the same. It is also alleged that the food'inspectors,'under the direction of appellee, forcibly removed appellants' brands of syrups from the shelves of dealers, against the consent of said dealers. And "that in no case, so far as your orators are informed and believe, was any sample taken of such syrups so taken from the shelves as aforesaid, nor were the said syrups sealed as required by the statutes of the State of Michigan, nor were any prosecutions ever commenced against said grocers or deal- ers, although ample time has elapsed since the acts complained of as aforesaid." The bill sets forth the efforts of appellants to have appellee commence prosecution against their agents and jobbers and against grocers and dealers handling their syrups, so that they might have an opportunity of defending the legality of their syrups "in the proper courts of the State of Michigan, and in a proper manner." These efforts, it is alleged, have failed; and it is further alleged that in all the acts and doings of the ap- pellee complained of he was and is acting as a private citizen of the State, but "under cover of his said o?ce of dairy and food commissioner." That his powers and duties as such of-
�
