10830.?Alleged misbranding of cottonseed meal and cake.     17. S. v. Louisi?
ana Cotton Oil Co., a Corporation.     Tried to the court and a jury.?
Verdict of not guilty.     (P. & D. No. 13165.    I. S. No. 12043-r.)
On December 3, 1920, the United States attorney for the Western District?
of Louisiana, 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 Louisiana Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, Shreveport, La., alleging shipment?
by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or?
about January 22, 1919, from the State of Louisiana into the State of Kansas,?
of a quantity of an article labeled in part, " 100 Pounds Gross. Manufactured?
by Southland Cotton Oil Co. Paris, Texas," which was alleged to have been?
misbranded.
Analysis of samples of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed that it contained 44.17 per cent of protein and 8.57 per cent?
of ammonia.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that the statements, to wit, " Guaranteed Analysis: Protein 46.00 Ammonia?
8.95" and " Manufactured by Southland Cotton Oil Co. Paris, Texas," borne?
on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article, regarding it and the?
ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and misleading in that?
they represented that said article contained not less than 46 per cent of protein?
and not less than 8.95 per cent of ammonia, and that said article was manufac??
tured by the Southland Cotton Oil Co. of Paris, Texas, and for the further?
reason that said article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead?
the purchaser into the belief that it contained not less than 46 per cent?
of protein and not less than 8.95 per cent of ammonia, and that said article?
was manufactured by the Southland Cotton Oil Co. of Paris, Texas, whereas,?
in truth and in fact, said article did not contain 46 per cent of protein and 8.95?
per cent of ammonia, but did contain a less amount, to wit, 44.17 per cent?
of protein and 8.57 per cent of ammonia, and said article was not manufactured?
by the Southland Cotton Oil Co., Paris, Texas, but was manufactured by the?
Louisiana Cotton Oil Co., Shreveport, La. 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 22, 1922, the case coming on for trial before the court and a jury,?
after the submission of evidence and arguments by counsel, the case was?
submitted to the jury who after deliberating rendered a verdict of not guilty.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N.J. 10801-10850.]     SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.      461