10463. Adulteration  and  Misbranding of  couch,   grass.     U.   S.     *     *      *     v.
Herbert Robinson Mcllvaine & Donald Mcllvaine (Mcllvaine 
Bros.). Pleas of guilty. Fine, $100. (F. & D. No. 15990. I. S. No. 
6345-t.)
On May 22, 1922, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in 
the District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
Herbert Robinson Mcllvaine and Donald Mcllvaine, copartners, trading as 
Mcllvaine Bros., Philadelphia, Pa., alleging shipment by said defendants, in 
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about May 5, 1921, from the State 
of Pennsylvania into the State of New York, of a quantity of couch grass 
which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: 
"McUvaine's (McIB) Couch Grass * * * Mcllvaine Brothers, Importers 
And Manufacturers, Philadelphia    *    *    * "
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that it consisted of 84 per cent Bermuda grass and 16 per 
cent genuine couch grass.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that it was sold under and by a name recognized in the United States Pharma- 
copoeia and differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as 
determined by the test laid down in the said pharmacopoeia, official at the 
time of investigation, in that the article was a mixture composed in large 
part of Bermuda grass, whereas the said pharmacopoeia provided that the said 
article, to wit, couch grass, should consist exclusively of Triticum.
M'sbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Couch 
Grass," borne on the packages containing the article, regarding the article 
and the substance contained therein, was false and misleading in that it repre- 
sented that the said article consisted wholly of couch grass, whereas, in 
truth and in fact, it did not so consist but did consist in large part of Bermuda 
grass. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was a 
mixture composed in large part of Bermuda grass and vvas offered for sale 
and sold under the name of another article, to wit, couch grass.
On May 22, 1922, the defendants entered pleas of guiltj to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine of $100.
C. W. PTJGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.