8.2294. Adulteration and misbranding: of oats. U. 8. v. 10T 8acks and 100 
8acks of Oats. Decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product 
released under bond. (F. & D. No. 18648. I. 8. Nos. 18065-v, 18068-v. 
8. No. E-3922.)
On May 7, 1924, the United 8tates attorney for the Northern District of 
Georgia, acting upon a report by the 8ecretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis- 
trict court of the United 8tates for said district libels praying the seizure and 
condemnation of 207 sacks of oats, remaining in the orginal unbroken pack- 
ages at Gainesville, Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped by Embry E. 
Anderson, from Memphis, Tenn., in two consignments, namely, on or about 
April 23, and April 24, 1924, respectively, and transported from the 8tate of 
Tennessee into the 8tate of Georgia, and charging adulteration and misbrand- 
ing in violation of the food and drugs act. A portion of the article was labeled 
in part: " Andersons Fancy Recleaned White Oats Bleached Memphis Tenn." 
The remainder of the said article was labeled in part: " Daisy Mixed Oats. 
Other grains recleaned and bleached. Embrey E. Anderson, Memphis, Tenn.," 
the words " Daisy Mixed Oats " appearing in very large letters and the words 
" Other Grains," appearing in comparatively small inconspicuous type.
Adulteration of the " Andersons Fancy" oats was alleged in the libel for 
the reason that substances, added moisture and salt, had been mixed and 
packed therewith so to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality or 
strength, and had been substituted wholly or in part for the said article. 
Adulteration of the " Daisy Mixed " oats was alleged for the reason that ex- 
cessive water had been mixed and packed with the said article in connection 
with oat screenings and salt, so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its 
quality.
Misbranding of the " Daisy Mixed " oats was alleged in substance for the 
reason that the designation " Daisy Mixed Oats Recleaned" was false and 
misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser, the statement " other 
grains" in inconspicuous type not correcting the misleading impression. 
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that it was offered for sale 
under the distinctive name of another article.
On May 24, 1924, Embry E. Anderson, Memphis, Tenn., claimant, having 
admitted the allegations of the libels and having consented to the entry of a 
decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture 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 $600, in conformity with section 10 of the act, conditioned in part that 
the article be relabeled to show its true nature.
HOWABD M. GOEE, Acting 8ecretary of Agriculture.