£)4"S5. Adulteration and Misbranding of cottonseed meal. V. S. * * * 
v. Union Cotton Oil Co., a Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. 
(F. & D. No. 14320.     I. S. No.  11097-r.)
On April 4, 1921, the United States attorney for the Northern District of 
Alabama, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
the Union Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, Birmingham, Ala., alleging shipment 
by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about October 
24
, 1919, from the State of Alabama into the State of Michigan, of a quantity 
of cottonseed meal which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was 
labeled in part, " Bartlett's Farmer Brand * Straight' Cotton Seed Meal * * * 
The J. E. Bartlett Company, Sale* Office, Jackson, Mich., U. S. A."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that it contained peanut hulls.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
a substance, to wit, peanut shells, had been mixed and packed therewith so as 
to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had 
been substituted in part for straight cottonseed meal, which the article pur- 
ported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " ' Straight' 
¦Cotton Seed Meal," borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the 
article, regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained therein, was 
false and misleading in that the said statement represented that the article 
consisted wholly of cottonseed meal, 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 wholly of cottonseed meal, whereas, in truth and in fact, it 
consisted in part of peanut shells. Misbranding was alleged for the further 
reason that the article was a mixture composed in part of peanut shells pre- 
pared in imitation of cottonseed meal, and was offered for sale and sold under 
the distinctive name of another article, to wit, cottonseed meal.
On April 22, 1921, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
C. W. PUGSLEY, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.