10700.?Adulteration and misbranding  of cottonseed  cake and cottonseed
cake or meal. V. S. * * * v. Robert Lee Batte, trading: as?
Tborndale Oil Mill Co. or Tborndale Oil Mill. Pleas of grnilty.?
Fine, $100.     (F   & D. Nos. 13084, 13178.    I. S. Nos. 10725-r, 18812-r.)
On July 9, 1921, the United States attorney for the Western District of Texas,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court?
of the United States for said district informations against Robert Lee Batte,?
trading as Thorndale Oil Mill Co., or Thorndale Oil Mill, Thorndale, Texas,?
alleging shipment by said defendant in violation of the Food and Drugs Act,?
as amended, on or about September 19, 1918, from the State of Texas into the?
State of Indiana, of a quantity of cottonseed cake which was adulterated and?
misbranded, and on or about January 20, 1920, from the State of Texas into?
the State of Kansas, of a quantity of cottonseed cake or meal which was?
misbranded. The shipment into Indiana was invoiced as C. S. Cake and sold?
under contract by the defendant as 43 per cent protein cottonseed cake. The?
shipment into Kansas was labeled in part, " Cotton Seed Cake or Meal 100?
Lbs. Gross 99 Lbs. Net    *    *    * "
Analysis of a sample from the Indiana shipment, by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this department, showed that it contained 41.6 per cent of protein. Exami??
nation of 30 sacks from the Kansas shipment, by the Bureau of Chemistry of?
this department, showed an average net weight of 95.3 pounds.
Adulteration of the article in the Indiana shipment was alleged in one of?
the informations for the reason that a product which contained less than 43?
per cent of protein had been substituted for 43 per cent cottonseed cake which?
the article purported to be.
Misbranding of the article in the Kansas shipment was alleged in the other?
information for the reason that the statement, to wit, " 100 Lbs. Gross 99 Lbs.?
Net," borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article, regarding?
it, was false and misleading in .that it represented that each of the sacks?
weighed 100 pounds gross and that each of said sacks contained 99 pounds net?
of the article, and for the further reason that said article was labeled as afore??
said so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that each of?
said sacks weighed 100 pounds gross and contained 99 pounds net of the?
article, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of said sacks did not weigh 100?
pounds gross but weighed a less amount and each of said sacks did not contain?
99 pounds net of the article but contained a less amount. Misbranding of?
the article in both shipments was alleged for the further reason that it was?
food in package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and?
conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.
On November 21, 1921, the defendant entered pleas of guilty to the informa??
tions, and the court imposed fines amounting in the aggregate to $100.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
S. K. A.—Chem. Suppi. 145.