9953.  Misbranding of   cottonseed   meal.      U.   S.      *      *      *     v.   The   Southern 
Cotton Oil Co., a Corporation.    Plea of guilty.    Fine, $100.     (F. & D.
No. 12880.    I. S. No. 18351-r.) 
On December 8, 1920, the United States attorney for the Northern District 
of Georgia, 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 Southern Cotton Oil'Co., a corporation, Columbus, Ga., alleging shipment 
by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs*Act, on or about November 
29, 1918,. from the State of Georgia into the State of Maine, of a quantity of 
cottonseed meal which was misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that it contained 5.32 per cent of nitrogen, 6.46 per cent of 
ammonia, 33.24 per cent of protein, and 16.76 per cent of crude fiber.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that the statement, to wit, " Guaranteed Analysis Ammonia 7% Protein 
36% * * * Nitrogen 5 3/4% * * * Fibre, max. 14%," borne on the 
tags attached to the sacks containing the said article, regarding it and the in- 
gredients and substances contained therein, was false and misleading in that 
the said statement represented that the article contained not less than 7 per 
cent of ammonia, 36 per cent of protein, and 5| per cent of nitrogen and that 
it contained not more than 14 per cent of fiber, and for the further reason 
that the said article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the 
purchaser into the belief that it contained not less than 7 per cent of ammonia, 
36 per cent of protein and 5f per cent of nitrogen and that it contained not 
more than 14 per cent of fiber, whereas, in truth and in fact, the said article 
contained less than 7 per cent of ammonia, 36 per cent of protein, and 5| per 
cent of nitrogen and contained more than 14 per cent of fiber.
On October 8, 1921, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.