10557. Adulteration and misbranding of horse feed. XT. S. * * * v. In??
ternational Sugar Feed No. Two Co., a Corporation. Plea of?
guilty.     Fine, $50 and costs.     (P. & D. No. 15584.    I. S. No. 12784-t.)
On March 27, 1922, the United States attorney for the Western District of?
Tennessee, 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 International Sugar Feed No. Two Co., a corporation, trading at Memphis,?
Tenn., alleging shipment by said company, on or about March 19, 1921, in
N.: J. 10551-10600]   SERVICE AND REGULATOBY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	315
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, from the State of Tennessee?
into the State of Texas, of a quantity of horse feed which was adulterated?
and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: (Tag) " 100-Lbs. Net In??
ternational Dan Patch Special Horse Feed Manufactured by International?
Sugar Feed No. Two Co. Memphis, Tenn.    *    *    *."
Examination of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed that it was badly heated, caked, musty, and moldy, and that a large?
part thereof was unfit for feeding purposes; fifteen sacks weighed by the?
said bureau showed a total gross weight of 1,422 pounds.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
it consisted in whole or in part of a filthy and decomposed vegetable substance.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, " 100 Lbs. Net?
when packed," borne on the sacks containing the article and the statement,?
to wit, " 100 Lbs. Net," borne on the tags attached to the said sacks, regard??
ing the article, were false and misleading in that the said statements repre??
sented that each of the said sacks contained 100 pounds net of the article, and?
for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so-as to deceive and?
mislead the purchaser into the belief that each of the said sacks contained 100?
pounds net of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of the said sacks?
did not contain 100 pounds net of the said article but did contain a less amount.?
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.
On June 2, 1922, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant?
company, .and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.
C. W. PUGSLBY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.