S7JJO. Misbi-andins' of Mother's selt'-risins flour, medium -grits, and Moun??
tain City Mills flour. V. S, * * * v. Mountain City Mill Co., a?
Corporation. Count 7 dismissed, by agreement. Counts 2, 4, 0, t),?
and. 11 dismissed by tbe court. Trial of remaining- counts before?
the court and a jury. Verdict of guilty on Counts 1, 8", and. !..<?.?
Fine, $300. Verdict of not guilty on Counts 8 and 5. (F. & D. No.?
S522.     I. S. Nos. 3211-m, 3212-m, 8213-m, 3214-m, 321<5-m.)
On March 21, 1917, the United States attorney for the Eastern 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 in 11 counts?
against the Mountain City Mill Co., a corporation, Chattanooga, Tenn., alleging?
shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, from the?
State of Tennessee into the State of Georgia, on or about March 16, 1917,: of?
quantities of Mother's self-rising flour and Mountain City Mills-flour, and on?
or about March 20, 1917, of a quantity of medium grits which were mis-?
branded. The articles were labeled in part, " Mother's Pure Wholesome Self-?
lUsing Flour * * * Mountain City Mill Co., Chattanooga, Tenn. * * *?
24 Lbs. when packed," " 96 Lbs. Medium Grits * * * Mountain City Mills?
Chattanooga, Tenn.," and "Mountain City Mills Flour * * * Mountain?
City Mills    *   .*    *    24 Lbs."
Examination of samples by the Bureau: of Chemistry of this department?
showed the average net weight of the articles to be as follows: Self-rising flour?
(16 sacks), 23 pounds and 8.2. ounces ; grits (23 sacks), 95 pounds and 6. ounces;?
and flour (24 sacks), 23 pounds ,and:11.2 ounces.
Misbranding of the articles was- alleged in the information for-the reason?
that the statements, to wit, in the case of the Mother's self-rising flour, " 24?
Lbs. when packed," in the case of the medium grits, "96 Lbs.," and in the case?
of the Mountain City Mills flour, " 24 Lbs.," borne on the sacks containing the?
articles, regarding the articles, were false and misleading in that they repre??
sented that said sacks contained 24 pounds or 96 pounds, as the ease might be,?
of the respective articles, and for the further reason that they were labeled as?
aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that said?
sacks contained 24 pounds or 96 pounds, as the case might be, of the respective?
articles, whereas, in truth and in fact, said sacks contained a less amount.
On June 19, 1920, Count 7 of the information having been dismissed by agree??
ment, the case came on for trial before the court and a jury. Counts 2, 4, 6, 9,?
and 11 were dismissed by the court as-being duplicates of remaining counts and?
the case was submitted to the jury on Counts 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10. After due de??
liberation the jury returned, a verdict-of guilty to Counts 1, 8, and 10 of the?
information and not guilty-to Counts 3 and 5, whereupon the court imposed a?
fine of $300.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.