1147S. Misbranding1 and alleged adulteration of flour. U. S. v. 410 Sacks?
of Flour. Decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product re??
leased under bond. (F. & D. No. 17405. I. S. No. 7921-v. S. No.?
W-1364.)
On March 26, 1923, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district a libel praying the seizure?
and condemnation of 410 sacks of flour, remaining in the original unbroken?
packages at Los Angeles, Calif., consigned by the Garland Milling Co., Garland,?
Utah, alleging that the article had been shipped from Garland, Utah, on or about?
March 3, 1923, and transported from the State of Utah into the State of Cali??
fornia, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food?
and Drugs Act, as amended. The article was labeled in part: " Garland Roller?
Mills Choicest Hard Wheat Pride of Utah 98 Lbs. Garland Milling Co. Gar??
land, Utah."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that water?
had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously?
affect its quality, and for the further reason that bleached flour containing ex??
cessive moisture had been substituted wholly or in part for the said article.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statements,?
" Choicest Hard Wheat * * * 98 Lbs.," were false and misleading and de??
ceived and misled the purchaser since the product was not flour unqualified?
but was bleached flour, and the sacks contained less than 98 pounds of the?
article. 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 since the quantity stated?
was not correct.
On April 13, 1923, the Garland Milling Co., Garland, Utah, having entered?
an appearance as claimant for the property, judgment of condemnation and?
forfeiture was entered, the court finding the product to be misbranded, and it?
was ordered 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 $2,000,?
in conformity with section 10 of the act, conditioned in part that it be relabeled?
in a manner satisfactory to the department.
HOWARD M. GORE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N. J. 11451-11500]      SERVICE AND REGULATORY AN N OUNCE ME NTS.      259