S.746&. Adulteration and nsAsferandins; of cotton-seed ^meal. U. ?>.***?
v. 5O0 Sacks of Cottonseed. Meal. Consent decree of condemnation,?
anil forfeiture. Product released on oond. (P. & D. No. 12190. I. S.?
No. 9242-r.    S. No. C-1766.)
On February 20,. 1920, the United States attorney for the Eastern District?
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and.?
condemnation of 500 sacks of cottonseed meal, consigned by United Oil Mills,?
from Arkadelphia, Ark., remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at?
East St. Louis, 111., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about?
January 21, 1920, and transported from the State of Arkansas into the State?
of Illinois, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food?
and Drugs Act, as amended. The article was labeled In part, " Nutrine Brand?
Cotton Seed Meal * * * Guaranteed Analysis, Protein, 41?, Fat, 6?, Crude?
Fibre (Maximum), 10? * * * Manufactured for Hayes Grain & Com??
mission Co., Little Rock, Arkansas."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that a?
substance had been mixed and packed with said article so as to reduce and?
lower its quality and strength.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the statements on?
the label, "Protein 41?," "Crude Fibre (Maximum) 10?," and "99 lbs. net,"?
were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser, since the?
article contained only 3,7.81 per cent of protein and 14.9 per cent of crude fiber?
and the sacks contained only 98 pounds net. Misbranding was alleged for the?
further reason that the article was food in package form and the quantity of?
the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside thereof?
in terms of weight or measure.
On March 22, 1920, the United Oil Mills Co., Hope, Ark., having entered an?
appearance as claimant and having agreed that the product should not be sold?
or offered for sale contrary to the provisions of State or Federal law, and the?
case having come on for final disposition, it was ordered by the court that the?
product be delivered to said claimant upon payment of the costs of the?
proceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of $3,000, in conformity with?
section 10 of the act, conditioned in part that the brands and advertising matter-?
be removed from the sacks and destroyed and that such brands or advertising?
matter as would meet the requirements of this department be placed thereon.
B. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture*