6330. Adulteration and misbranding of oats. U. S. * * * v. Clark Fagg and Albert K.?
Taylor (Fagg & Taylor). Pleas ol nolo contendere. Fine, $100. (F. & D. No. 7232.?
I. S Nos. 479-k, 592-k, 600-k, 1177-1180-k, 2921-k, 2923-2934-k, 3003-3004-k, 11466-11482-k,?
13775-13777-k, 13779-13789-k.)
On August 21,1916, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the?
United States for said district an information against Clark Fagg and Albert K. Taylor,?
copartners, trading as Fagg & Taylor, Milwaukee, Wis., alleging shipment by said?
defendants, in violation of the Food and Drugs act, on or about December 12, 1914,?
December 30,1914, January 2,19 L5, January 7,1915, January 8,1915, January 11,1915,?
January 18,1915, January 19,1915, January20,1915, January21,1915, January 22,1915,?
January 26, 1915, and January 27, 1915, from the State of Wisconsin into the State of?
Maryland, or New York, or Pennsylvania, or Maine, or Connecticut, or Vermont, or?
Michigan, or Massachusetts, or New Jersey, or the District of Columbia, as the case?
might be, of varying quantities of an article purporting to be oats, which in some?
instances was adulterated, in others adulterated and misbranded, and in others?
misbranded.
Examination of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed the presence of barley and added water, each or both of which, as the case?
might be, were present in the oats.
Adulteration of the article in certain of the shipments was alleged for the reason that?
a certain substance, to wit, barley, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to?
reduce or lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been substi??
tuted in whole or in part for oats, which the article purported to be. Adultera??
tion of the article in certain of the shipments was alleged for the reason that cer??
tain substances, to wit, barley and water, had been mixed and packed therewith?
so as to reduce or lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been?
substituted in whole or in part for oats, which the article purported to be. Adul??
teration of the article in certain of the shipments was alleged for the reason that a?
certain substance, to wit, barley, had been substituted in whole or in part for oats,?
which the article purported to be. Adulteration of the article in certain of the?
other shipments was alleged for the reason that a certain substance, to wit, water, had?
been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its?
quality and strength, and had been substituted in whole or in part for oats, which?
the article purported to be.
Misbranding of the article in certain of the shipments was alleged for the reason that?
it consisted of, to wit, a mixture of oats and barley, and was offered for sale under the?
distinctive name of another article, to wit, oats. Misbranding of the article in cer??
tain of the other shipments was alleged for the reason that it consisted of, to wit,?
a mixture of oats, barley, and water and was offered for sale under the distinctive?
name of another article, to wit, oats. Misbranding of the article in certain of the?
other shipments was alleged for the reason that it consisted of, to wit, a mixture?
of oats and water and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of' another?
article, to wit, oats.
On March 1, 1918, the defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere to the informa??
tion, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N. J. 63O1-6350.]   SEBVIOB AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	381