F. & T>. No. 759.	
Issued March 4,1910.
I. S. No. 16829-a.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 190, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.
MISBRANDING OF RICE.
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 reg??
ulations for the enforcement of the act, notice is given that on the?
3d day of September, 1909, in the District Court of the United?
States for the District of Oregon, in a prosecution by the United?
States against S. H. Harris, of Portland, Ore., for violation of section?
2 of the aforesaid act in shipping and delivering for shipment from?
Oregon to Washington a quantity of misbranded rice, the said S. H.?
Harris entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed upon him a?
fine of $25.
The facts in the case were as follows:
On March 18, 1909, an inspector of the Department of Agriculture?
purchased from Higgins &? Hendricksen, Vancouver, Wash., a sam??
ple of a food product labeled "Mikado No. 1 Fancy Japan Rice.?
Coated with Glucose and, Talc, Remove by washing before using,"?
which formed part of a shipment made by S. H. Harris from Port??
land, Ore., to Higgins & Hendricksen, Vancouver, Wash., on or?
about February 25, 1909. The sample was examined in the Bureau?
of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture, where?
it was found to be a product of domestic Southern origin. It ap??
peared that the product was misbranded within the meaning of sec??
tion 8 of the act in that it was labeled "Mikado No. 1 Fancy Japan?
Rice," which statements were false and misleading in that they?
tended to induce the purchaser to believe that he was buying a?
product grown and manufactured in Japan, whereas the product was?
grown and manufactured in the United States of America.
It appearing from the aforesaid examination that the article was?
misbranded, the Secretary of Agriculture gave notice to Higgins &?
Hendricksen, the dealers from whom the sample was purchased,?
and to the Louisiana Rice Milling Company (S. H. Harris), the?
manufacturer and shipper, and gave them an opportunity to be heard.?
S. H. Harris being the party solely responsible for the misbranding?
of the article and failing to show any fault or error in the result of?
the aforesaid examination, and it being determined that the article?
28212?10
was misbranded, on August 10, 1909, the said Secretary reported the?
facts and evidence to the Attorney-General, by whom they were?
referred to the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon,?
who filed an information against S. H. Harris, with the result here??
inbefore stated.
JAMES WILSON,?
Secretary of Agriculture.?
WASHINGTON, D. C, February 7, 1910.
190