12623. Adulteration and misbranding of corn meal.     V. S. v. Mayo Milling
Co., Inc., a Corporation.     Plea of  guilty.     Fine,  $50.     (F.  & D.  No.
17911.    1. S. Nos. 1040-v, 2728-v.)
On or about January 3, 1924, the United States attorney for the Eastern 
District of Virginia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
in the District Court of the United States for said district an information 
against tee Mayo Milling Go, Inc., a corporation, Richmond, Va., 
alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act as 
amended, on or about March 21, 1923, from the State of Virginia into the State 
of Pennsylvania, and on or about April 4, 1923, from the State of Virginia into 
the District of Columbia, of quantities of corn meal, a portion of which was 
adulterated and misbranded and the remainder of which was misbranded. A 
portion of the article was labeled in part: (Sack) "Mayo Mill ng Company 
Inc. * * * Bolted Old Process Meal * * * Richmond, Va. 100 Lbs. 
Net When Packed." The remainder of the said article was labeled in part: 
(Package) "2 Lbs. Net When Packed Old Virginia Bolted White Corn Table 
Meal Mayo Milling Co. Inc Richmond, Virginia."
Examination by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of the consign- 
ment shipped March 21, 1923, showed that it contained 15.3 per cent of moisture 
and that 20 sacks weighed on an average 99.1 pounds net. Examination by 
said bureau of 100 packages from the other consignment showed an average 
net weight of 1 pound and 14.84 ounces.
Adulteration of the product consigned March 21. 1923, was alleged in the in- 
formation for the reason that a substance, to wit, moisture, had been mixed 
and packed with the article so as to lower, and reduce, and injuriously affect 
its quality and strength and for the further reason that a substance, to wit, 
excessive moisture, had been substituted for meal, which the article purported 
to be.
Misbranding was alleged in the information with respect to both consign- 
ments of the product for the reason that the statement, to wit, " 100 Lbs. Net," 
borne on the sacks in one consignment, and the statement, to wit, " 2 Lbs. Net," 
borne on the packages of the other consignment, were false and misleading in that 
the said statements represented that the said sacks and packages contained 100 
pounds net or 2 pounds net, as the case might be, of the said article, and for the 
further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the 
purchaser into the belief that the sacks and packages contained 100 pounds net or 
2 pounds net, as the case might be, of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact, 
each of said sacks and packages contained less than the amounts declared on 
the respective labels. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that 
the article wa? food in package form and the quantity of the contents was not 
plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.
On April 10, 1924, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
HOWABD M. GORE, Secretary of Agriculture.