11327.?Adulteration and misbranding of cottonseed meal. U. S. v. 40O?
Sacks of Cottonseed Meal. Decree of condemnation and forfeitnre.?
Product released under bond. (F. & D. No. 17208. I. S. No. 2593-v. S. No.?
E-4296.)
On January 29, 1923, 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 a libel for the seizure and?
condemnation of 400 sacks of cottonseed meal, remaining in the original un??
broken packages at Mount Joy, Pa., and vicinity, consigned by the Eastern?
Cotton Oil Co., Hertford, N. C, alleging that the article had been shipped from?
Hertford, N. C, on or about January 10, 1923, and transported from the State?
of North Carolina into the State of Pennsylvania, and charging adulteration?
and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was?
labeled in part: " Perfection Cotton Seed Meal 100 Lbs. Net Manufactured?
By Eastern Cotton Oil Company Hertford, North Carolina. Guarantee Protein?
not less than 41.00? Equivalent to Ammonia 8.00? * * * Ingredients??
made from Upland Cotton Seed."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that a sub??
stance low in protein, ammonia, had been mixed and packed therewith so as?
to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been?
substituted wholly or in part for the said article.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the labels bore the?
following statements regarding the article and the ingredients and substances?
contained therein, " Perfection Cotton Seed Meal * * * Guarantee Protein?
not less than 41.00? Equivalent to Ammonia 8.00? Ingredients?made from?
Upland Cotton Seed," which statements were false and misleading in that the?
said article did not in fact contain 41 per cent of protein, equivalent to 8 per?
cent of ammonia. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the?
article was an imitation of and offered for sale under the distinctive name of?
another article.
On February 8, 1923, E. H. Zercher, Mount Joy, Pa., having entered an ap??
pearance as claimant for the property, judgment of condemnation and forfei??
ture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product be released?
to the said claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and the?
execution of a bond in the sum of $1,000, in conformity with section 10 of the?
act, conditioned in part that the said product be relabeled under the supervision?
of this department.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.