10624. Misbranding   of   cracked   cottonseed  feed.     XT.   S.     *      *      *     v.   South??
land   Cotton   Oil   Co.,  a   Corporation.    Plea   of  guilty.     Fine,   $50.
(F. & D. No. 12289.    I. S. No. 10872-r.)
On August 25, 1920, the United States attorney for the Northern 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?
Southland Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, Waxahachie, Tex., alleging shipment?
by said company, on or about September 13, 1918, in violation of the Food and?
Drugs Act, as amended, from the State of Texas into the State of Kansas, of?
a quantity of cracked cottonseed feed which was misbranded. The article?
was labeled in part: " 100 Lbs. Net Cracked Cotton Seed Feed No. 5 * * *?
Manufactured By Southland Cotton Oil Co.   Waxahachie, Texas    *    *    *."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it contained 36.31 per cent of protein and 15.06 per?
cent of crude fiber. Examination of 27 sacks by said bureau showed that the?
average net weight of the sacks examined was 98.3 pounds.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
the statements, to wit, " 100 Lbs. Net" and " Guaranteed Analysis: Protein?
(not less than) 38.5-10? * * * Crude Fiber (not more than) 14?," borne?
on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article, regarding the said?
article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and?
misleading in that they represented that each of the said sacks contained not?
less than 100 pounds of the article and that the said article contained not less?
than 38.5 per cent of protein and not more than 14 per cent of crude fiber,?
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 con??
tained not less than 100 pounds of the article, and that it contained not less?
than 38.5 per cent of protein and not more than 14 per cent of crude fiber,
352	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 143,
whereas, in truth and in fact, each of the said sacks did contain less than?
100 pounds of the article and the said article did contain less than 38.5 per?
cent of protein and more than 14 per cent of crude fiber. 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 conspicuously marked on?
the outside of the package.
On May 16, 1921, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf?
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
0. W. PTJGSIJSY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.