7148. Adulteration and Misbranding of rice. IT. S. * * * v. George B. Matthews, George B. Matthews, jr., and Martin L. Matthews (George B. Matthews & Sons). Plea of gnilty. Fine, $10. (F. & D. No. 9796. I. S. No. 15492-p.) On May 5, 1919, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district an information against George B. Matthews, George B. Matthews, jr., and Martin L. Matthews, a part- nership, trading as George B. Matthews & Sons, New Orleans, La., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about May 9, 1918, from the State of Louisiana into the State of Mississippi, of a quantity of an article, labeled in part " Pure Rice Bran, Manufactured by George B. Matthews & Sons, New Orleans, La.," which was adulterated and misbranded. Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- partment showed the following results: Per cent. Moisture 7. 44 Ether extract . 14.93 Crude fiber- 14. 57 Crude protein :_ 11.22 Ash 13. 79 Acid-insoluble ash 7.10 Results of analysis indicate presence of added rice hulls. Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that a substance, to wit, rice hulls, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to lower, reduce, and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been substituted in part for pure rice bran, which the article purported to be. Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Protein 12.50 per cent * * * Fibre 10.00 per cent," borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article, regarding it and the ingredients and the substances contained therein, was false and misleading in that-it rep- resented that the article contained not less than 12.50 per cent of protein and not more than 10 per cent of fiber, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it contained not less than 12.50 per cent of protein and not more than 10 per cent of fiber, whereas, in truth and in fact, it contained less than 12.50 per cent of protein and more than 10 per cent of fiber, to wit, 11.22 per cent of protein and 14.57 per cent of fiber; and for the further reason that the statement, to wit, " Pure Rice Bran," borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article, regarding it and the ingredients and sub- stances contained therein, was false and misleading in that it represented that the article consisted exclusively of rice bran, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it consisted exclusively of rice bran, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not so consist, but consisted of a mixture composed in part of rice hulls. On May 23, 1919, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the information, and the court imposed a fine of $10. E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.