21037. Misbranding of cottonseed meal and cake. TJ. S. v. Southland Cot- 
ton Oil Co, Plea of guilty. Fine, $175. (F. & D. no. 29367. I. S. 
nos. 23817, 23818, 23820, 45599.)
This case was based on the interstate shipment of four lots of cottonseed 
meal and cake. In three of the shipments a large number of the sacks were 
found to contain less than 100 pounds, the declared weight; in the fourth 
shipment the product was found to contain less protein and more fiber than 
declared on the label.
On December 7, 1932, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
Oklahoma, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court an information against the Southland Cotton Oil Co., a corpora- 
tion, Oklahoma City, Okla., alleging shipment by said company in violation 
of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, between the dates of October 1, 1931, 
and November 18, 1931, from the State of Oklahoma into the State of Kansas, 
of quantities of cottonseed meal and cake that was misbranded. The article 
was labeled in part (Tag) : " 100 Lbs. Net Southland's Cottonseed Cake and 
Meal Prime Quality Guaranteed Analysis Crude Protein, not less than 43% 
* * * Crude Fibre, not more than 10%, * * * Made * * * by 
Southland Cotton Oil Company Head Office, Paris, Texas."
It was alleged in the information that portions of the article were misbranded 
in that the statement " 100 Lbs. Net", borne on the tag, was false and mis- 
leading, and for the further reason that the article was labeled so as to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser, since each of a large number of the sacks contained 
less than 100 pounds of the article. Misbranding of the said portions 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, since the statement made was incorrect. Misbranding 
was alleged with respect to the remainder of the article for the reason that 
the statements, " Guaranteed Analysis Crude Protein, not less than 43%, Crude 
Fibre, not more than 10% ", borne on the tag, were false and misleading, and 
for the further reason that the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead 
the purchaser, since the article contained less than 43 percent of crude protein 
and more than 10 percent of crude fiber.
On January 5, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $175.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.