9625. Adulteration and misbranding of cottonseed meal. U. S. * * * 
v. Eagle Cotton Oil Co., a Corporation.    Plea of guilty.     Fine, $50.
(F. & D. No. 11225.    I. S. No. 10682-r.)
On March 8, 1920, the United States attorney for the Southern District of 
Mississippi, 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 Eagle Cotton Oil Co., a corporation, Meridian, Miss., alleging shipment by 
said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about November 26, 
1918, from the State of Mississippi into the State of Indiana, of a quantity of 
cottonseed meal which was adulterated and misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart- 
ment showed that it contained 32.5 per cent of protein and 16.7 per cent of crude 
fiber. Examination of the article by said bureau showed that it contained at 
least 36 per cent of cottonseed hulls.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
a substance, to wit, cottonseed hulls, had been mixed and packed therewith so 
as to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had 
been substituted in part for cottonseed meal, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " Cotton- 
seed Meal * * * not less than * * * 36.0 per cent of crude protein, 
not more than 14.0 per cent of crude fiber," borne on the tags attached to the 
-sacks containing the article, regarding it and the ingredients and substances 
contained therein, were false and misleading in that they represented that the 
said article was cottonseed meal and that it contained not less than 36 per cent 
of crude protein and not more than 14 per cent of crude fiber, and for the fur- 
ther reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the 
purchaser into the belief that it was cottonseed meal and contained not less than 
36 per cent of crude protein and not more than 14 per cent of crude fiber, 
whereas, in truth and in fact, the said article was not cottonseed meal but was 
a mixture of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls, and it did contain less than 
36 per cent of crude protein and more than 14 per cent of crude fiber. Mis- 
branding was alleged for the further reason that it was a mixture of cottonseed 
•meal and cottonseed hulls and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive 
name of another article, to wit, cottonseed meal.
On March 15, 1921, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine -of $50.
C. W. PXJGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.