12448. Misbranding of feed.    U. S. v. Royal Feed & Milling: Co., a Corpora¬
tion.    Plea   of   guilty.    Fine,   850.     (F.   &   D.   No.   16573.    I.   S.   Nos. 
11977-t,  11978-t,  11980-t.)
On February 27, 1923, the United States attorney for the Eastern 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 Royal Feed & Milling Co., a corporation, organized and existing under the 
laws of Delaware and having a place of business at Jackson, Miss., and there- 
tofore trading at New Orleans, La., alleging shipment by said company, in 
violation of the food and drugs act, in various consignments, namely, on or 
about October 26 and November 11, 1921, respectively, from the State of 
Louisiana into the State of Mississippi, of quantities of feed which was mis- 
branded. The article was labeled variously, in part: " Brownie Horse and 
Mule Manufactured By Royal Feed & Milling Co., Memphis, Tenn. Jackson, 
Miss. New Orleans, La. Guaranteed Analysis Protein 9.00 Per Cent"; " Unlik- 
e Sweet Feed Manufactured By Royal Feed & Milling Co. Memphis, Tenn. 
Jackson, Miss. New Orleans, La. Guaranteed Analysis Protein 9.00 Per Cent" ; 
" Aunt Mandy Horse & Mule Manufactured By Royal Feed & Milling Co. New 
Orleans Protein 9.00 Per Cent."
Analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of a sample taken 
from each of the three consignments of the article showed that the said 
samples contained 6.13 per cent, 6.83 per cent, and 7.67 per cent of protein, 
respectively.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that the statement, to wit, " Protein 9.00 per cent," borne on the tags attached 
to the sacks containing the article, regarding the said article and the ingredients 
and substances contained therein, was false and misleading in that the said 
statement represented that the article contained not less than 9 per cent of 
protein, and for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid 
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it contained 
not less than 9 per cent of protein, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did contain 
less than 9 per cent of protein, to wit, the three samples containing 6.13 per 
cent, 6.83 per cent, and 7.67 per cent, respectively.
On April 21, 1924, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
HOWARD M. GORE, Secretary of Agriculture.