i^ued January 25,1621.
United States Department of Agriculture,
BUREAU   OF   CHEMISTRY,?
C.   L.   ALSBERG,   Chief   of   Bureau.
ERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.
SUPPLEMENT.
N.J. 8101-8150.?
[Approved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, "?f'?>shuigton, D. C, January 10, 1921.]
NOTICES OF JUDGMENT UNDER THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.
[Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.]
8101. Misbranding of Special Horse & Mule Feed, Liayrao Poultry Feed,?
Krak a Jak Poultry Feed, Black Jack Horse & Mule Feed, Gray?
Mule Horse & Mule Feed, and Success Hen Feed. U. S. * * * v.?
The Superior Feed Co., a Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $350"?
and costs. (F. & D. No. 9605. I. S. Nos. 6822-p, 6823-p, 6824-p, 6825-p,?
6826-p,  6827-p, 6828-p, 7133-p, 7134-p, 7728-p, 7798-p.)
On August 18, 1919, the United States attorney for the Western District of?
Tennessee, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against the?
Superior Feed Co., a corporation, Memphis, Term., alleging shipment by said?
defendant, on or about January 5, January 16, February 9, February 12, Febru??
ary 16, February 27, March 4, March 13, March 15, March 25, and April 19, 1918,?
from the State of Tennessee into the States of Georgia and Florida, in violation?
of the Food and Drugs Act, of'quantities of articles, labeled in part " Special?
Horse & Mule Feed," " Laymo Poultry Feed," "Krak a Jak Poultry Feed,"?
" Black Jack Horse & Mule Feed," " Gray Mule Horse & Mule Feed," and " Suc??
cess Hen Feed," and on each, " Manufactured by The Superior Feed Co., Mem??
phis, Tenn.," which were misbranded.
Examination of representative samples of the articles by the Bureau of?
Chemistry of this department showed that the quantity of the contents of the?
sacks averaged 89.12, 89.10, 94.99, 94.55, 95.72, 87.34, 95.04, 94.8, 89.30, 89.72, and?
88.32 pounds, respectively. Analysis of samples from the shipment of March'?
13, 1918, showed that it contained 9 per cent of protein and 2.43 per cent of fat.
Misbranding of the article in each shipment was alleged in the information?
in that the statements on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article,?
regarding the article, to wit, "100 pounds net when packed," "100 pounds net,"?
and " 100 pounds Feed Stuff," were false and misleading in that it was repre??
sented that each sack contained 100 pounds of the article, whereas, in fact, it?
did not contain 100 pounds but did contain a less amount. Further misbrand??
ing was alleged in that the article was labeled so. as to deceive and mislead?
24403??21?1?
80	
BUREAU   OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 93,
tlie purchaser in tliat it represented that each sack contained 100 pounds of the?
article, whereas each sack contained a less amount. Further misbranding of?
the article in the shipment of March 13, 1918, was alleged in that the statement,?
to wit, ?" Guaranteed Analysis: Protein 10? Fat 3.25?," borne on the tags?
attached to the sacks, was false and misleading in that it represented that the?
article contained not less than 10 per cent of protein and 3.25 per cent of fat,?
whereas, in truth and in fact, it contained less than 10 per cent of protein and?
3.25 per cent of fat, to wit, 9 per cent of fat and 2.43 per cent of fat. Further?
misbranding was alleged in that it was food in package form, and the quantity?
of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the?
package.
On July 9, 1920, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information,?
and the court imposed a fine of $350 and costs.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.