Notice of Judgment Nos. 117-118.	
Issued December 11, 1909.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,?
BOARD   OF  FOOD  AND  DRUG  INSPECTION.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NOS. 117-118, FOOD AND DRUGS
ACT.
117. Adulteration and misbranding of stock feed.     (Low protein and fat content.)
IIS. Adulteration  and  misbranding  of  buckwheat  flour.     (As  to  presence   of  wheat   and  corn?
products.)
(N. J. 117.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF STOCK FEED.
(LOW TROTEIN AND FAT CONTENT.)
In accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Food and?
Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and of regulation 6 of the rules and?
regulations for the enforcement of the act, notice is given that on the?
3d day of June, 1909, in the district court of the United States for?
the western district of Michigan, in a prosecution by the United?
States against the Michigan Starch Company, a corporation of Trav??
erse City, Mich., for violation of section 2 of the aforesaid act, in?
shipping and delivering for shipment from Michigan to New York a?
misbranded stock feed, the case having come on for trial and the said?
Michigan Starch Company having appeared through its attorney?
and entered a plea of guilty, the court imposed upon it a fine of $50.
The facts in the case were as follows:
On January 30, 1908, an inspector of the Department of Agricul??
ture purchased from J. H. Peters' Sons, Albany, N. Y., a sample of?
stock feed labeled and branded "Michigan Starch Co., Traverse City,?
Michigan, 100 lbs., Gluten Feed, 25? Protein, 3? Fat." The sample?
was part of a consignment shipped by the Michigan Starch Company?
from Traverse City, Mich., to John A. Becker, at Albany, N. Y.,?
and subsequently sold by him to J. H. Peters' Sons. This sample?
was subjected to analysis in the Bureau of Chemistry, United States?
Department of Agriculture, and the following results obtained and?
stated:
Fer cent.
Moisture?
    0- 32
Pat?
    2.48
Protein?
23. 31
16358?09
It was apparent that the article was misbranded within the mean??
ing of section 8 of the act, because it was labeled " 25 per cent pro??
tein, 3 per cent fat," whereas the analysis showed that it contained?
only 23.31 per cent of protein and 2.48 per cent of fat.
The Secretary of Agriculture having afforded the manufacturer?
an opportunity to show any fault or error in the findings of the?
analyst, and it having failed to do so, the facts were, on January 11,?
1909, reported to the Attorney-General and the case referred to the?
United States attorney for the western district of Michigan, who?
filed an information against the said Michigan Starch Company, with?
the result hereinbefore stated.
H. W. WILEY,?
F. L. DUNLAP,?
GEO. P. MCCABE,?
Board of Food and Drug Inspection.?
Approved.
JAMES WILSON,
Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, November ??, 1909.