15229. Adulteration   and  Misbranding of feed.    U.   S.   v.   The   Sturges   Co.
Flea   of   grnilty.     Fine,   $50.     (P.   &   D.   No.   19294.     I.   S.   Nos.   18148-v, 
18149-V, 18150-v.)
On March 18, 1925, 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 
Sturges Co., a corporation, Meridian, Miss., alleging shipment by said company, 
in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, on or about March 15, 1924, 
from the State of Mississippi into the State of Alabama, of quantities of feed, 
which was misbranded, and a portion of which was adulterated. The article 
was labeled, variously: " 100 Pounds Bar-Nun Horse and Mule Feed Manufac- 
tured by The Sturges Company, Meridian, Miss. * * * Made from Corn, 
Oats, Alfalfa Meal, Cottonseed Meal and Molasses," " 100 Pounds Pronto Horse 
and   Mule   Feed   Manufactured   by   The   Sturges   Company,   Meridian,   Miss.
* * * Made from Corn, Oats, Alfalfa Meal, Cottonseed Meal, Oat Meal Mill 
By-Products (Oat Hulls, Oat Dust, Rice Bran, Oat Shorts) and Molasses," 
and " 100 Pounds Little Ben Horse and Mule Feed Manufactured by The 
Sturges Company, Meridian, Miss."
; It was alleged  in   the  information  that   the   " Bar-Nun"   brand   and  the
I " Pronto " brand feed were adulterated, in that a substance containing no cotton- 
& seed meal, with respect to the former, and a substance devoid of rice bran and 
\ containing a negligible quantity of cottonseed meal, with respect to the latter, 
f had been substituted for a horse and mule feed made from the ingredients 
{ declared on the label, which the article purported to be. Adulteration was 
I alleged for the further reason that valuable constituents of the article, to wit, 
I cottonseed meal, in the case of the " Bar-Nun " feed, and rice bran and cotton- 
? seed meal, with respect to the "Pronto" feed, had been abstracted from the 
|.    article.
I' Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " 100 
Pounds Bar-Nun Horse and Mule Feed * * * Made from Corn, Oats, 
Alfalfa Meal, Cottonseed Meal and Molasses," "100 Pounds Pronto Horse and 
Mule Feed   *    *    *   Made from Corn, Oats, Alfalfa Meal, Cottonseed Meal,
Oat Meal Mill By-Products (Oat Hulls, Oat Dust, Rice Bran, Oat Shorts) and 
Molasses," "100 Pounds Little Ben Horse and Mule Feed," as the case Wight 
be, borne on the tags attached to the sacks containing the article, were faliy- 
and misleading in that the said statements represented that the sacks eatch 
contained 100 pounds of the article, that the " Bar-Nun " feed contained, amdrig 
other ingredients, cottonseed meal, and that the " Pronto " feed was made from 
corn, oats, alfalfa meal, cottonseed meal, oat meal mill by-products (oat hulls, 
oat dust, rice bran, oat shorts) and molasses; and for the further reason that 
it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into 
the belief that the said sacks contained 100 pounds of the article, that the 
" Bar-Nun " feed contained, among other ingredients, cottonseed meal, and that 
the " Pronto " feed was made from corn, oats, alfalfa meal, cottonseed meal, 
oat meal mill by-products (oat hulls, oat dust, rice bran, oat shorts) and 
molasses; whereas each of said sacks did not contain 100 pounds of the article, 
but did contain a less amount, the " Bar-Nun" feed contained no cottonseed 
meal, and the " Pronto" feed was not composed of the declared ingredients, in 
that rice bran was absent, and cottonseed meal was present in so negligible 
an amount as not to be considered a constituent. 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 of the 
package since the sacks contained less than represented.
On September 20, 1926, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
W. M. JABDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.