S245.  Adulteration   and   misbranding-   of   cottonseed   feed   and   cottonseed?
meal and  cake.   TJ.  S.    *   *     *    v.  Shiner Oil Mill  & Mis;.   Co., a Cor-,?
Deration.     Plea   of   guilty.     Fine,   .$50.      (P.   &  D.   No.   10110.     I.   S.   Nos.?
10830-r,  10SG7-r.)
On May 5, 1920, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district an information against the?
Shiner Oil Mill & Mfg. Co., a corporation, Shiner, Tex., alleging shipment by?
said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about?
August 18, 1918, from the State of Texas into the State of Kansas, of a quantity?
of an article, labeled in part " Cut Cotton Seed Feed Number Five," which was?
adulterated and misbranded, and on or about October 16, 1918, from the State '?
of Texas into the State of Kansas, of a quantity of an article, labeled in part?
" Texoma Brand Prime Cotton Seed Meal and Cake," which was misbranded.?
The cottonseed feed was represented by the defendant company as analyzing 40?
per cent protein and better.
Analysis of a sample of the cottonseed feed by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this department showed that it contained 38.40 per cent of protein. Examina??
tion showed that the net weight of the contents of 80 sacks averaged 97.82 pounds.
Adulteration of this article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that a substance, to wit, cottonseed cake containing less than 40 per cent of?
protein, had been substituted in whole or in part for cottonseed cake contain??
ing 40 per cent of protein, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding of this article was alleged in substance for the reason that the?
statement, to wit, " 100 Pounds,", borne on the tags attached to the sacks con??
taining the article, regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained?
therein, was false and misleading, in that it represented that the sacks contained?
.100 pounds of the article, and for the further reason that .it was labeled and?
described as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the?
belief that each of the sacks contained 100 pounds of the article, and that said?
article was 40 per cent protein cottonseed cake, whereas, in truth and in fact,?
each of the sacks did not contain 100 pounds of the article, but did contain a less?
amount, and said article was not 40 per cent protein cottonseed cake, but was a?
cottonseed cake containing less than 40 per cent of protein. Misbranding?
was alleged for the further reason that the article was cottonseed cake con??
taining less than 40 per cent of protein, and was offered for sale and sold under?
the distinctive name of another article, to wit,s40 per cent protein cottonseed?
cake. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was food?
in package form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and con??
spicuously marked on the outside of the package.
Analysis of a sample of the prime cottonseed meal and cake showed that it?
contained 40.75 per cent of protein.
Misbranding of this article was alleged for the reason that the statement, to?
wit, " Protein not less than 43?," borne on the tags attached to the sacks con??
taining the article, regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained?
therein, was false and misleading in that it represented that the article contained?
not less than 43 per cent of protein, 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 43 per cent of protein, whereas, in truth and in?
fact, it contained less than 43 per cent of protein.
On June 26, 1920, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf of?
the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N, J. 8201-32561     SERVICE KT$3 EMULA^ORY AMOUISrCEMENTS.	179