Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that it con-
sisted in part of a filthy, decomposed, and putrid animal substance, in that it
consisted in part of a portion of an animal unfit for food, and in that it was
the product of a diseased animal.

On August 6, 1928, the claimants and owners having consented to the destruc-

tion of the product and having paid all costs, judgment of condemnation and

forfeiture was enterer, and it was ordered by the court that the product be

destroyed by the United States marshal.

ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.

15974. Misbranding of soda crackers. U. S. v. 17 Cases of Soda Crackers.

Consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product re-

leased under bond. (F. & D. No. 22779. I. S, No. 22450-X. S. No. 811.)

On May 15, 1928, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona.

acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court

of the United States for said district a libel praying seizure and condemnation

of 17 cases of soda crackers at Phoenix, Ariz., alleging that the article had been

shipped by the Loose Wiles Biscuit Co., from Kansas City, Mo., in various

consignments on or about February 11, March 19, and March 30, 1928, respec-

tively, and had been transported from the State of Missouri into the State of

Arizona, and charging misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act as

amended. The article was labeled in part: " Sunshine City Sodas Loose Wiles

Biscuit Company, Net Weight 812 Ozs."

It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the state-

ment, “ Eight and one half ounces net weight," borne on the packages containing

the said article, was false and misleading and deceived and misled the pur-

chaser, and in 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 quantity stated was not correct, the true net weight of the

contents of the said packages being less than 872 ounces.

On July 2, 1928, the Loose Wiles Biscuit Co., Kansas City, Mo., claimant,

having admitted the allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry

of a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was

ordered by the court that the product be released to the said claimant upon

payment of costs and the execution of a bond in the sum of $100, conditioned

in part that the packages be relabeled to show the contents thereof to weigh

712 ounces.

ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.

15975. Misbranding of molasses feed. U. S. v. 200 Sacks of Molasses Feed.

Consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product re-

leased under bond. (F. & D. No. 22826. I. S. No. 18933-X. S. No. 872.)

On May 25, 1928, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas,

acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court

of the United States for said district a libel praying seizure and condemnation

of 200 sacks of molasses feed, remaining in the original unbroken packages at

Plymouth, Kans., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Davidson

Mill & Elevator Co., from Kansas City, Mo., on or about April 17, 1928, and

transported from the State of Missouri into the State of Kansas, and charging

misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act as amended. The article

was labeled in part: "Golden Rule Special Cattle Fattener Special 60% Molasses
Feed 100 Pounds Net Manufactured by Davidson Mill and Elevator Company,
Kansas City, U. S. A. Guaranteed Analysis Crude Protein not less than 6.00%,
Crude Fat not less than 1.50%, Crude Fiber not more than 15.00%, Carbo
Nitrogen Free Extract not less than 61.00%.”

It was alleged in substance in the libel that the statements, “ Crude Protein

not less than 6.00%," “ Crude Fat not less than 1,50%," “ Carbo-Nitrogen Free

Extract not less than 61.00%,” “ Crude Fiber not more than 15.00%," borne on

the label, were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser.

Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the statement, “100 Pounds

Net,” borne on the label, was false and misleading in that the sacks contained

less than 100 pounds net of the article. 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.

On June 9, 1928, the Davidson Mill & Elevator Co., Kansas City, Mo., having

appeared as claimant for the property and having consented to the entry of a

decree, judgment of condemnation was entered, and it was ordered by the court

that the product be released to the said claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of $500, conditioned in part that it be relabeled to show the true contents.

ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.

15976. Adulteration of dry beans. U. S. v. 185 Sacks of Dry Beans. Con

sent decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product released

under bond. (F. & D. No. 21935. I. S. No. 2668-X. S. No. C-5472.) On May 24, 1927, the United States attorney for the Western District of Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district a libel, and on May 27, 1927, an amended libel, praying seizure and condemnation of 185 sacks of dry beans, remaining in the original unbroken packages at Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Snover Grain Co., Sandusky, Mich., on or about January 20, 1927, and had been transported from the State of Michigan into the State of Missouri, and charging adulteration in violation of the food and drugs act. The article was labeled in part: “ Michigan Pea Beans."

It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that it consisted in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed, or putrid vegetable substance.

On May 27, 1927, the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., Kansas City, Mo., claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel and having consented that judgment be entered for the condemnation and forfeiture of the property, a decree was entered finding the product adulterated, and it was ordered by the court that the said product be released to the claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of $1,000, conditioned in part that it be salvaged under the supervision of this department and the decomposed portion destroyed.

ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.

*

15977. Adulteration and misbranding of olive oil. U. S. v. 56 Gallons of

Olive Oil. Product ordered released under bond. (F. & D. No.

22463. I. S. No. 13223-X. S. No. 576.) On February 17, 1928, the United States attorney for the District of Utah, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 56 gallons of olive oil, remaining in the original unbroken packages at Salt Lake City, Utah, alleging that the article had been shipped by the Dyson Shipping Co., from San Francisco, Calif., on or about January 21, 1928, and had been transported from the State of California into the State of Utah, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act. The article was labeled in part: Guaranteed Imported Pure Virgin Olive Oil, Superfine, A Pure Medicinal

R. C. Brand. This Olive Oil is guaranteed to be absolutely pure. A. Giurlani & Brother, San Francisco, California."

It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that cottonseed oil had been mixed and packed with and substituted in part for the said article.

Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the label bore the statements, Pure Virgin Olive Oil” and “This Olive Oil is guaranteed to be absolutely pure,” which said statements were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was an imitation of and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article.

On April 28, 1928, A. Giurlani & Bro., San Francisco, Calif., claimant, having paid the costs of the proceedings and having executed a bond in the sum of $250, it was ordered by the court that the product be released to the said claimant to be relabeled under the supervision of this department.

ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.

15978. Adulteration and misbranding of cottonseed meal. U. S. v. 200

Sacks of Cottonseed Meal. Product ordered released under bond.

(F. & D. No. 22171. 1. S. No. 14633-X. S. No. 223.) On November 15, 1927, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Florida, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 200 sacks of cottonseed meal, remaining in the original unbroken packages at Monticello, Fla., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Planters Oil Co., Albany, Ga., October 7, 1927, and transported · from the State of Georgia into the State of Florida, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act. The article was labeled and branded in part: “100 Pounds Second-Class Cottonseed Meal Guaranteed Analysis Ammonia 7%, Equivalent to Protein, 36%."

It was alleged in substance in the libel that the article was adulterated in that a cottonseed feed deficient in ammonia content had been mixed and packed with and substituted in part for the said article.

Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the said branding was false and misleading and deceptive in that the article did not contain 7 per cent of ammonia, nor was the ammonia content thereof equivalent to 36 per cent of protein.

On November 29, 1927, L. R. Rainey, Monticello, Fla., having appeared as claimant for the property and having paid the costs and executed a good and sufficient bond in accordance with law, it was ordered by the court that the product be released to the said claimant.

ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture. 15979. Adulteration of butter. U. S. v. Carl W. Schmidt (Faith Creamery

Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (F. & D. No. 21591. I. S. Nos.

7200–3, 13473-..) On August 10, 1927, the United States attorney for the District of South Dakota, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district an information against Carl W. Schmidt, trading as Faith Creamery Co., Faith, S. Dak., alleging shipment by said defendant, in violation of the food and drugs act, on or about August 18, 1926, from the State of South Dakota into the State of New York, of quantities of butter which was adulterated.

It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that a product which contained less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat had been substituted for butter, a product which should contain not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat, as prescribed by the act of March 4, 1923, which the said article purported to be.

On September 8, 1927, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information, and the court imposed a fine of $50.

ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.

15980. Adulteration of butter. U. S. v. 8 Cubes, et al., of Batter. Consent

decrees of condemnation and forfeiture. Product released under bond. (F. & D. Nos. 23075, 23078. I. S. Nos. 036, 037, 081. S. Nos. 1108,

1109.) On August 10 and August 20, 1928, respectively, the United States attorney for the Northern District of California, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district libels praying seizure and condemnation of 76 cubes of butter, remaining in the original unbroken packages at San Francisco, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Cudahy Packing Co., from Portland, Ore., in part July 28, 1928, and in part August 1, 1928, and transported from the State of Oregon into the State of California, and charging adulteration in violation of the food and drugs act.

It was alleged in the libels that the article was adulterated in that a substance deficient in butterfat had been substituted wholly or in part for the said article, and in that a valuable constituent, namely, butterfat, had been in part abstracted.

On August 20, 1928, the Cudahy Packing Co., San Francisco, Calif., having appeared as claimant for the property and having consented to the entry of decrees, judgments of condemnation and forfeiture were entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product be released to the said claimant upon payment of costs, and the execution of bonds totaling $2,655, conditioned in part that it be made to conform with the law under the supervision of this department.

ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.

15981. Misbranding of tomato catsup. U. s. v. 364 Cases, et al., of Tomato

Catsup. Consent decrees adjudging product misbranded and orđeving it released under bond. (F. & D. Nos. 22922, 22924. I. S. Nos.

01179 to 01184, incl. S. Nos. 987, 988.) On July 31, 1928, the United States attorney for the Western District of Missouri, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district libels praying seizure and

66

or

condemnation of 516 cases of 1412-ounce bottles and 229 cases of 8-ounce bottles of tomato catsup at Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Frazier Packing Co., from Elwood, Ind., in part on or about November 15, 1927, and in part on or about April 24, 1928, and had been transported from the State of Indiana into the State of Missouri, and charging misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act. The article was labeled in part: “ Purity Brand (or “ Frazier's Superfine Frazier's Tomato Catsup”). The Frazier Packing Co., Elwood, Ind. ;” (neck label on portion of bottles) "Absolutely pure, no preservative or artificial coloring."

It was alleged in the libels that the article was misbranded in that the statement, Tomato Catsup," borne on the bottle and case labels, and the statement, “No preservative or artificial coloring,” borne on the neck labels of a portion of the bottles, were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser when applied to an article containing artificial color.

On August 25, 1928, the Frazier Packing Co., Elwood, Ind., claimant, having consented to the entry of decrees of condemnation and having executed bonds totaling $4,000, to insure the relabeling of the product, judgments were entered finding the product misbranded, and it was ordered by the court that the said product be released to the claimant, for the purpose of relabeling in conformity with the requirements of the law, upon payment of all costs.

ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.

re

15982. Adulteration and misbranding of butter. U. S. v. 4 Boxes of Butter.

Consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product

leased under bond, (F. & D. No. 22858. I. S. No. 26393-X. S. No. 962.) On July 3, 1928, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Supreme Court of the district aforesaid, holding a District Court, a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 4 boxes of butter, remaining in the original unbroken packages at Washington, D. C., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Litchfield Creamery Co., from Litchfield, Minn., June 27, 1928, and transported from the State of Minnesota into the District of Columbia, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act as amended.

It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that a product deficient in milk fat had been substituted for butter, which the said article purported to be, for the further reason that a product which contained less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat had been substituted for butter, a product which should contain not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat, as prescribed by the act of March 4, 1923, and for the further reason that a valuable constituent of the article had been wholly or in part abstracted.

Misbranding was alleged for the 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, and for the further reason that the statement, “1 Lb. Net,” was false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser.

On July 20, 1928, the Litchfield Creamery Co., Litchfield, Minn., claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product be released to the said claimant upon payment of costs and the execution of a bond in the sum of $150, conditioned in part that it should not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to law, and it was further ordered by the court that the product be reconditioned to meet the requirements of the Federal food and drugs act.

ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture, 15983. Adulteration of butter. U. S. v. 22 Boxes of Butter. Consent de

cree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product released under

bond. (F. & D. No. 22867. I. S. No. 03357. S. No. 961.) On July 9, 1928, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Supreme Court of the district aforesaid, holding a District Court, a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 22 60-pound boxes of butter, remaining in the original unbroken packages at Washington, D. O., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Markesan Creamery, Geo. C. Johnson, proprietor, from Markesan, Wis., June 26, 1928, and transported from the State of Wisconsin into the District of Columbia, and charging adulteration in violation of the food and drugs act. The article was labeled in part: “Markesan Creamery One Pound Pasteurized Creamery Butter, Markesan, Wisconsin."

It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that a product deficient in milk fat had been substituted for butter, which the said article purported to be, for the further reason that a product which contained less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat had been substituted for butter, a product which should contain not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat, as prescribed by the act of March 4, 1923, which the article purported to be, and for the further reason that a valuable constituent of the article had been wholly or in part abstracted.

On July 16, 1928, Joseph S. Beall, Washington, D. C., claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product be released to the said claimant upon payment of costs and the execution of a bond in the sum of $1,000, conditioned in part that it should not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to law.

ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture. 15984. Misbranding of 999 nerve tonic, Prescription 999, and Prescription

999 astringent wash. U. s. v. 294 Dozen Boxes of 999 Nerve Tonic, et al. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (F. & D. No. 22356. 1. S. Nos. 96340-x, 96341-3, 96342-8. S. No.

374.) On January 10, 1928, the United States attorney for the Southern 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 praying seizure and condemnation of 234 dozen boxes of 999 nerve tonic, 41 dozen boxes of Prescription 999, and 6 packages of Prescription 999 astringent wash at Rock Island, Ill., alleging that the articles had been shipped by the Combination Remedy Co., Pittsburgh, Pa., on or about November 2, 1927, and had been transported from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of Illinois, and charging misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act as amended.

Analyses of samples of the articles by this department showed that the 999 nerve tonic consisted essentially of zinc 'phosphide, calcium sulphate, and extracts of nux vomica and damiana; that the Prescription 999 consisted essentially of the volatile oils of nutmeg, santal, and cubeb, copaiba, and fatty oil; and that the Prescription 999 astringent wash consisted essentially of boric acid and magnesium sulphate, colored with a coal tar color.

The labels of the articles bore the following statements which this department deemed to be false and fraudulent: (999 nerve tonic, box label) “Nerve Tonic. The ingredients from which these capsules are compounded have been used and prescribed for years for rundown systems and nervous disorders; (Prescription 999, box label) “ Recommended for kidney and bladder disorders. This medicine is a combination of Oil Sandalwood, Oil Cubebs, Copaiba, and other valuable Vegetable Oils which are known to give the best results in treating the disease for which this medicine is intended

after all signs of the disease have disappeared ; ” (Prescription 999 astringent wash, carton) “ To be used in conjunction with 999 Capsules. For Kidney and Bladder Disorders, as a wash for Irritated Membranes.”

It was alleged in the libel that the articles were misbranded in violation of section 8, paragraph 3, of said food and drugs act as amended.

On April 17, 1928, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment was entered finding that the said articles were false and fraudulent in that they contained no ingredients or combinations of ingredients capable of producing the effects claimed, and it was ordered by the court that they be condemned, forfeited, and destroyed by the United States marshal.

ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture. 15985. Misbranding of Creomulsion. U. s. v. 1,000 Dozen Bottles, et al., of

Creomulsion. Decrees of condemnation and forfeiture entered. Product released under bond. (F. & D. Nos. 22741 to 22750, incl.. 22752 to 22755, incl., 22772, 22778. 1. S. Nos. 17444-X, 17648-X, 22252-1 to

22255-x, incl. S. Nos. 754, 757, 761, 764, 783, 798.) On or about May 7, May 8, May 10, May 11, May 14, and May 17, 1928, respectively, the United States attorneys for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District of Oregon, Northern District of California, District of Colorado, District of Delaware, and District of Maryland, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Courts of the United States

*

*

« ForrigeFortsett »