24819. Misbranding of cottonseed cake and meal.    U. S. -v. Chickasha Cotton Oil
Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, 964 and costs. (F. & D. no. 33865. Sample 
nos. 57534-A, 57535-A, 57536-A, 57538-A, 57542-A, 57543-A, 57548-A, 
57549-A, 63707-A.)
This case was based on various shipments of cottonseed cake and meal, 
portions of which were short weight and the remainder of which was defi- 
cient in protein.
On February 6,' 1935, 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 Chickasha Cotton Oil Co., a 
corporation, trading at Lawton, Hobart, and Altus, Okla., alleging ship- 
ment by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended 
between the dates of October 28, 1933, and January 19, 1934, from the State 
of Oklahoma into the State of Kansas of quantities of cottonseed cake and 
meal which were misbranded.
The articles were labeled, variously: "Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. Chickasha, 
Oklahoma Manufacturers of Cotton Seed Products General Office:Chickasha, 
Oklahoma Weight 100 Pounds Net"; "100 Pounds Net Chickasha Prime 43% 
Protein Cottonseed Cake or Meal * * * Manufactured by or for Chick- 
asha Cotton Oil Company Chickasha, Okla."; "Chickasha Quality 43% Protein 
Cottonseed Cake or Meal * * * Protein, not less than 43% * * * 
Manufactured by or for Chickasha Cotton Oil Company Chickasha, Okla."; 
"Weight 100 Pounds Net Chickasha Prime Cottonseed Cake or Meal * * * 
Altus Cotton Oil Mill, Altus, Okla."
The information charged Misbranding of certain shipments of the articles 
in that the statements "Weight 1,00 Pounds Net" or "100 Pounds Net", borne 
on the tags, were false and misleading, and for the further reason that the 
articles were labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since each 
of a large number of the sacks examined from the said shipments contained 
less than 100 pounds of the article. Misbranding of the products in the said 
shipments was alleged for the further reason that they were 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 was incorrect. Mis- 
branding was alleged with respect to the products in the remaining ship- 
ments for the reason that the statements, "43% Protein" and "Guaranteed 
Analysis Protein, not less than 43%", borne on the tags, were false and mis- 
leading, and for the further reason that they were labeled so as to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser since they contained less than 43 percent of protein.
On July 17, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant 
company and the court imposed a fine of $64 and costs.
W. R. GEEGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.