"19775. Misbranding of cottonseed cake and meal. U. S. v. Grace Milling; 
Co. Tried to the court. Judgment in favor of the Government on 
two counts. Fine, $200 and costs. Judgment for defendant on 
remaining; 12 counts. (P. & D. No. 25020. I. S. Nos. 09602, 09603, 
09604, 09608, 09611, 09636, 09645, 025850.)
This action was based on the interstate shipment of seven lots of cottonseed 
meal and cake. Samples taken from four of the consignments were found to 
?contain less than 43 per cent of protein, the amount declared on the label, and 
certain sacks examined from the said shipments were also found to be short 
of the declared weight. In one of the remaining consignments, certain sacks 
were found to be short weight, and in the other two lots analyses showed less 
protein than declared.
On August 14, 1930, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District 
Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an information containing 
14 counts, against the Greco Milling Co., a corporation, Sherman, Tex., alleging 
shipment by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, 
between the dates of May 6, 1929 and September 27, 1929, from the State of 
Texas into the State of Kansas, and on or about November 13, 1929, from the 
State of Texas into the State of Colorado, of quantities of cottonseed meal 
and cottonseed cake that was misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled 
in part: (Tag) " 100 Pounds Net Grace 43% Brand 43% Protein Prime Cotton- 
seed Cake or Meal * * * Guaranteed Analysis Protein, not less than 43% 
"*    *    *   Manufactured by Graco Milling Company,  Sherman,  Texas.   Cairo,
Illinois." The remainder of the said article was labeled in part: " 100 Pounds 
Net   *   *   *   Guaranteed Analysis: Protein, not less than 43%."
It was alleged in counts 3 and 6 of the information that the article covered 
by said counts was misbranded in that the statements, " 100 Pounds Net," and 
"" Guaranteed Analysis Protein not less than 43%," borne on the tags attached 
to the sacks containing the article, were false and misleading, and for the 
further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mis- 
lead the purchaser; since the sacks contained less than 100 pounds net of the 
.article, and the product contained less than 43 per cent of protein. Similar 
charges were made in the remaining 12 counts, with the exception that 1 count 
?charged short weight only, and 2 of the counts charged deficiency of protein only. 
Misbranding was alleged with respect to all but 2 lots of the article, for the 
further reason that it was food in package form and the quantity of the con- 
tents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package, 
since the statement made was not correct.
On April 6, 1932, a jury having been waived, the case came on for trial 
before the court. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the 
court found in favor of the Government on counts 3 and 6, and in favor of 
the defendant on all other counts. A penalty of $200 and costs was imposed 
-against the defendant company.
HENBY A. WALLACE, Secretary of Agriculture.