F.  & D. No.  3155.
S. No. 1150.	
Issued February 8, 1913.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1907.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF MIXED FEED.
On November 30, 1911, the United States Attorney for the South??
ern District of Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of?
Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said?
district a libel for the seizure and condemnation of 50 bags each?
containing 75 pounds of mixed feed remaining unsold in the original?
unbroken packages and in possession of J. L. Young, Douglas, Ga.,?
alleging that the product had been shipped on or about October 23,?
1911, by the Akin-Erskine Milling Co. (Inc.), Evansville, Ind., and?
transported from the State of Indiana into the State of Georgia, and?
charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food?
and Drugs Act. The product was labeled: (On bags) "Akin Erskine?
Milling Co., 75 lbs. Clover Leaf Fancy Winter Wheat Shorts and?
Bran Mixfeed Guaranteed Pure Evansville Ind. Clover Leaf."?
(On shipping tags) " 100 Pounds Pure Winter Wheat Fancy Shorts?
Manf'd by Akin Erskine Milling Co. Evansville, Ind. Guaranteed?
Analysis.
Crude   fiber?
?3.90
Protein?
?16. 36
Sugar and starch?
?62.66
Crude   fat?
?4.50
Ash?
?3.15
Water?
?9. 43
Total?
   100?
Made from Wheat."
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the libel for the reason?
that the alleged shorts and bran mixed feed was mixed and packed?
with mill screenings, said screenings not being shorts and bran- as?
said feed purported to contain, but being offal and refuse products
66565??No. 1907?13
of the mill and therefore said mixed feed was thereby lowered and?
reduced and injuriously affected in its quality and strength, and for?
the further reason that the alleged shorts and bran mixed feed was?
adulterated because screenings were substituted in part for said?
shorts and bran mixed feed. Misbranding was alleged for the reason?
that the bags and tags bore no statement that the product was com??
posed in part of screenings and there was nothing in the branding?
and labeling of the product to indicate the presence of said screen?
ings.
On July 3, 1912, no claimant having appeared for the property,?
judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered and it was?
further ordered that the product should be destroyed by the United?
States marshal or otherwise disposed of as might be most advan??
tageous to the United States.
W. M. HAYS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, November 7. 1912.
1907