S66S. Misbranding- of dairy feed. XT. S. * * * v. Sutherland Flour Mills?
Co., a. Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, Sj*100 and costs. (F. & D.?
No. 11427.    I.  S. Nos.  16306-r,  18032-r.)
At the April, 1920, term of the District Court of the United States within?
and for the Eastern District of Illinois,- the United States attorney for said?
district, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court aforesaid an information against the Sutherland Flour Mills Co.,?
a corporation, Cairo, 111., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of?
the Food and Drugs Act, on or about December 31, 1918, and April 15, 191S,?
from the State of Illinois into the States of Georgia and Pennsylvania, re??
spectively, of quantities of an article, labeled in part, " Daisy Dairy Feed,"?
which was misbranded.
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that the product contained 8.18 per cent of protein, 0.94?
per cent of fat, and 16.51 per cent of crude fiber, and consisted mainly of ground
N. J. 8651-8700]	SERVICE  AND  REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.        105
corn, alfalfa meal, ground screenings,   and molasses.  It contained no wheat?
bran   or oat feed.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that the following statements, to wit, " Made from Ground Corn, Wheat Bran,?
Wheat Screenings, Alfalfa Meal, Oat Feed and Molasses Guaranteed Analysis?
Protein 13.25 per cent, Fat 3.50 per cent, Fiber 12.50 per cent," borne on the?
tags attached to the sacks containing the article, regarding the article and?
the ingredients and substances contained therein, were false and misleading?
in that they represented that the article was compounded from the ingredients?
named on the tag, and that it contained not less than 13.25 per cent of protein?
and not less than 3.50 per cent of fat, and not more than 12.50 per cent of fiber,?
and for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to?
deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was compounded from?
the ingredients named on the tag, and that it contained not less than 13.25?
per cent of protein, not less than 3.50 per cent of fat, and not more than 12.50?
per cent of fiber, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not compounded from the?
ingredients named on the label, but was a mixture which contained no wheat?
bran or oat feed, and contained less th.in 13.25 per cent of protein and less than?
3.50 per cent of fat, and more than 12.50 per cent of fiber.
On October 7, 1920, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf?
of the defendant company, and (he court imposed a fine of $100 and costs.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.