S340. Adulteration and misbranding of flour. TJ. S. * * * v. 2S7 Saelcs?
of Flour. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and de??
struction.     (F. & D. No. 754.    I. S. No. 5705-b.    S. No. 279.)
On August 7, 1909, the United States attorney for the Northern District of?
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district a libel, on November 19, 1919,?
an amended libel, and on December 27, 1919, a stipulation for further amend??
ment of the libel, praying seizure and condemnation of 287 sacks of flour, re??
maining unsold in the original unbroken packages at Chicago, 111., alleging?
that the article had been shipped on or about August 10 [August 4], 1909, by the?
Waterloo and Cedar Falls Union Mill,Co., Cedar Falls, Iowa, and was in the
N. J. 8301-8350]       SERVICE  AND  REGULATORY  ANNOUNCEMENTS.	217
course of -transportation from the State of Iowa into the State of New "Eerie,?
and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and L>rugs?
Act.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel and amendments thereto?
for the reason that said flour was mixed, colored, powdered, coated, and stained?
in a manner whereby damage and inferiority were concealed.
Misbranding Was alleged in substance for the reason that the flour was?
branded " Waterloo and Cedar Falls Union Mill Company, Crystal patent, from?
hard "wheat, Waterloo, Iowa,'* which said statement regarding the flour was?
false and misleading in that it represented that the flour was patent flour,?
whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not, but was a kind of flour known as?
straight flour; for the further reason that the label bore a statement which was?
false and misleading in that it thereby represented that the flour was made?
from hard wheat, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not, but was made from?
a mixture consisting of more than one-half winter wheat, the balance being?
Spring wheat; and for the further reason that the flour was in fact an imita-?
tation of, and was designed and offered for sale under the distinctive name of,?
patent flour, and was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead' the?
purchaser thereof.
Oii May 18, 1912, an order was entered that 282 sacks of the flour be released,?
and that 5 sacks be retained in the custody of the court for jurisdictional pur??
poses. On December 2T, 3919, no claimant having appeared for tlie property,?
judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered as to the D sacks re??
maining in custody, and it was ordered by the court that the product be de??
stroyed by the United States marshal, and that the Waterloo and. Cedar t If alls?
Union Mill Co. should pay the costs of the proceedings.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.