14468. Misbranding? of cottonseed cake. TJ. S. v. Munday Cotton Oil Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (F. & D. No. 19722. I. S. No. 23099-v.) In the month of March, 1926, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Texas, 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 Munday Cotton Oil Co., a-corporation, Munday, Tex7,~ alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, on or about January 20, 1925, from the State of Texas inta;the State.of Kansas, of a quantity of cottonseed cake which was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: (Tag) "100 Pounds (Net) 43 Percent Protein Cotton- seed Cake Prime Quality Manufactured by Munday Cotton Oil Company Munday, Texas Guaranteed Analysis Crude Protein not less than 43.00 Per Cent." Analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of 1 sample from the shipment showed 39.18 per cent protein, and examination of 40 sacks of the article showed an average net weight of 98.86 pounds. Misbranding of the article Was alleged in the information for the reason that the statements, to wit, " 43 Percent Protein," " Guaranteed Analysis Crude Protein not less than 43.00 Per Cent," and "100 Pounds (Net)," borne on the labels, were false and misleading, in that the said statements represented that the article contained not less than 43 per cent of protein, and that it 12G39-26 2 . 3 ? ? 3 contained not less than 43 per cent of. crude protein, and that each of the - sacks contained 100 pounds net of the said article, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the ;i purchaser into the belief that it contained not less than 43 per cent of protein and not less than 43 per cent of crude protein, and that each sack contained 100 pounds net of the article, whereas it contained less than 43 J per cent of protein, less than 43 per cent of crude protein, and the said sacks . contained less than 100 pounds net 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. V On March 29, 1926, a plea of guilty to the information "was" entered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100. . ?- W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of Agriculture. ;