113&2. Adulteration and misbranding- of wheat shorts. TJ. S. v. Sutherland?
Flour Mills Co., a Corporation. Plea of not g-uilty. Tried to the?
court. Judgment of guilty as to counts 3 and 4, and of not guiHy?
as to counts 1, 2, 5, and G. Fine, $200. (F. & D. No. 15153. I. S. No.?
9162-t.)
On November 15, 1921, the United States attorney for the Eastern District?
of Illinois, 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?
Sutherland Flour Mills Co., a corporation, Cairo, 111., alleging shipment by?
said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about December?
11, 1920, from the State of Illinois into the State of Florida, of a quantity of?
alleged grey shorts which was adulterated and misbrand?'d. The article was?
labeled in part, (tag) "Wheat Shorts with Mill Run Ground Screenings?
* * * Manufactured by Sutherland Flour Mills Co. Cairo, 111.," and was?
invoiced as grey shorts.
Examination of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed that it consisted of reground bran, ground screenings, and flour.?
Shorts, if present, were present in a small proportion.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the first count of the information?
for the reason that a substance, to wit, reground bran, had been mixed and?
packed with the said article so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect?
its quality and strength. Adulteration was alleged in the second count for the?
further reason that a substance, to wit, reground bran, had been substituted?
wholly or in part for grey shorts, which the article purported to be. Adulter??
ation was alleged in the third count for the further reason that a substance,?
to wit, reground bran, had been substituted wholly or in part for wheat shorts?
with mill run ground screenings, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged in the fourth count of the information for the?
reason that the article was a producL composed wholly or in part of reground?
bran and was an imitation of and offered for ^ale under the distinctive name?
of another article, to wit, grey shorts. Misbranding was alleged in the fifth?
and sixth counts for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Wheat Shorts?
with Mill Bun Ground Screenings," borne on the tags attached to the sacks?
containing the article, regarding the article and the substances and ingredients?
contained therein, was false and misleading in that the said statement repre??
sented the article to be wheat shorts with mull run ground screenings, to wit,,?
an article consisting principally of wheat shorts and containing no reground?
bran, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to.?
deceive and mislead the purchaser into the beKef that it was wheat shorts with?
mill run ground screennigs, to wit, an article consisting principally of wheat?
shorts and containing no reground bran, whereas, in truth and in fact, said?
article contained little or no wheat shorts, but was an article composed wholly?
or in part of reground bran.
On May 16, 1922, the defendant company having entered a plea of not guilt y?
to the information, the case came on for trial before the court, and after the-?
submission of evidence and arguments by counsel the matter was taken under
N.J. 11351-11400.]     SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.      199
advisement by the court which, on Nov. 16, 1922, rendered a judgment of not?
guilty on counts 1, 2, 5, and 6, and of guilty on counts 3 and 4 and imposed a?
fine of $100 and costs on each of the said two counts.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.