S052. Adulteration antl misbranding- of so-called sug'ar corn. U. S. * * *? v. 1,380 Cases of So-Called Sugar Corn. Consent decree of condem?? nation and forfeiture. Product ordered sold. (F. & D. No. 10471.? I. S. No. 7659-r. S. No. C-1207.) On June 3, 1919, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas, 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? 1,390 cases of so-called sugar corn, 390 of which remained unsold in the original? unbroken packages at Independence, Kans., and 1,000 of which remained unsold? 21G7G0-?21?1? 48 BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY. [Supplement 92, in the original unbroken packages at Chanute, Kans., alleging that the article? had been shipped by W. E. Robinson & Co., Olarksville, Ohio, on or about Octo?? ber 5, 1918, and transported from the State of Ohio into the State of Kansas,? and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs? Act. The product was labeled in part, " Purest Brand Extra Fine Sugar Corn.? Packed by A. A. Linton, Olarksville, Ohio." Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that field? corn had been substituted in whole or in part for sugar corn, which product it? purported to be.? ? ;?; Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the.statements on the labels of? the article were false and misleading and vyere calculated to deceive and mis?? lead the purchaser into believing that the product was pure sugar corn, when,? in truth and in fact,, it was field corn. On November 10, 1919, the case having come on for disposition, judgment of? condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that? the product be sold by the United States marshal, and that the purchaser thereof? execute a good and sufficient bond in the sum of $500, conditioned in part that? the product would not be disposed of contrary to law, State or Federal. B. D; BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.