15090.  Adultei-ation  and  Misbranding of  meat  scraps.     U.  S.  v.  113  Sacks ' 
and   130   Sacks   of  Notalco  JVIeat  Scraps.     Consent   decree   of   con- 1
demnation and  forfeitare.    Product  released  under  bond.     (F.  & j
D. No. 21641.     I. S. Nos. 13547-x, 13548-x.     S. No. E-5980.)
On or about February 18, 1927, the United States attorney for the Southern I
District of Florida, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed \
in the District Court of the United States for said district a libel praying seizure i
and condemnation  of 243  sacks of meat  scraps,  remaining  in  the original! |
unbroken packages at Jacksonville, Fla., alleging that the article had been ship- 1
ped by the Norfolk Tallow Co., from Norfolk, Va., on or about January 10, |
1927, and transported from the State of Virginia into the State of Florida, !
and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the food and drugs f
act.   A portion of the article was labeled in part: " Manufactured by the Nor- \
folk Tallow Co.,. Norfolk, Va., Notalco A A High Grade Meat Scraps    *    *    * j
Guaranteed Analysis : Protein Min. 45%    *    *    *    Phos. Acid Max. 10%."   The 1
remainder of the said article was labeled in part: " Manufactured by the Nor- \
j|k'-'Tallow Co. ? Norfolk,  Va.  Notalco  Extra  Quality Meat   Scraps    *    *    * 
f&aranteed Analysis Protein Min. 55%    *    *    *    Phos. Acid. Max. 10%." 
%Xj. was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated, in that meat 
?raps deficient in protein had been substituted in part for the said article. 
^"Misbranding was  alleged for the reason  that the labels  bore statements, 
guaranteed  Analysi-s  Protein  Min.  45%,"  or   " Protein  Min.   55%,"   as  the 
e?se might be, which were false and misleading and deceived and misled the 
purchaser.
%0n March 16, 1927, the Norfolk Tallow Co., Inc., claimant, having admitted 
e  allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry of a decree, judg- 
ment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the 
?dhrt that the product be released to the said claimant upon the execution of a 
j>nd in the sum of $1,000, conditioned in part that it be reworked and relabeled 
JE6' contain the amount of protein in accordance with the guarantee.
W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.