NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1173.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF WHEAT.
On May 17, 1909, the United States Attorney for the Northern 
District of Texas filed in the District Court of the United States for 
said district a libel praying condemnation and forfeiture of one car- 
load of wheat shipped by the Hall-Baker Grain Co., Kansas City, 
Mo., to the Walker Grain Co., Fort Worth, Tex., and remaining in 
the original car on the tracks of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe 
Railway Co., at Fort Worth. Tex. The said wheat was not labeled, 
but was sold and shipped as No. 2 red wheat.
Samples of said wheat were collected by J. S. Abbott, Dairy and 
Food Commissioner of the State of Texas, acting under the author- 
ity of the Secretary of Agriculture as an inspector of this Depart- 
ment, which were examined by P. S. Tilson, duly authorized and 
empowered as a collaborating chemist of the Bureau of Chemistry of 
this Department, who reported said samples to consist of 40 per cent 
hard wheat. The libel alleged that the wheat, after transportation 
from the State of Missouri into the State of Texas, remained in the 
original unbroken package, to wit, the car in which the same was 
shipped, and that it was adulterated and misbranded in violation of 
the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and was, therefore, liable 
to seizure and confiscation. Adulteration was alleged because an- 
other substance, to wit, hard wheat, had been mixed with and substi- 
tuted in part for No. 2 red wheat. Misbranding was alleged because 
said wheat was sold under the distinctive name of another article, to 
wit, No. 2 red wheat, when in fact it was not No. 2 red wheat, but a 
mixture thereof with 40 per cent hard wheat, whereby the purchaser 
was deceived and misled.
14734°—No. 1173—11
On May 26, 1909, the case coming on for hearing, and the Walker 
Grain Co. having appeared as claimant and owner of said wheat, and 
admitted its adulteration and misbranding as alleged in the libel, the 
court adjudged the said wheat adulterated and misbranded in viola- 
tion of the aforesaid act, and decreed its condemnation, with a pro- 
viso, however, that should said claimant pay all costs of the proceed- 
ings and execute and deliver a good and sufficient bond that said 
wheat should not be again disposed of contrary to law the same 
should be released to claimant. The costs being paid and bond given, 
the wheat was released accordingly.
W. M. HATS,
Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 
WASHINGTON, D. C, October 83, 1911.
1178
o