12433. Misbranding of  cottonseed  meal.     U.   S. v.  Terrell  Oil  &  Refining
Co., a Corporation.    Plea of guilty.    Fine, $150.     (F. & D. No. 18094. 
I. S. No. 10436-v.)
On April 7, 1923, the United States attorney for the Northern District of 
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis- 
trict Court of the United States for said district an information against the 
Terrell Oil & Refining Co., a corporation, Terrell, Tex., alleging shipment by 
said company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, on or about 
September 27, 1922, from the State of Texas into the State of Kansas, of a 
quantity of cottonseed meal which was misbranded. The article was labeled 
in part: " Weight 100 Pounds Net " Chickasha Prime" Cottonseed Cake or 
Meal Guaranteed Analysis: Protein, not less than 43 per cent."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that it contained 40.73 per cent of protein. Examination of" 
20 sacks of the article by said bureau showed the average net weight of the- 
contents to be 98.56 pounds.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
the statements, to wit, "Guaranteed Analysis: Protein, not less than 43 per 
cent" and " Weight 100 Pounds Net," borne on the tags attached to the sacks 
containing the said article, were false and misleading in that the said state- 
ments represented that the article contained not less than 43 per cent of 
protein and that each of the said sacks contained not less than 100 pounds net 
weight of the article, and for the further reason that it was labeled as afore- 
said so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it con- 
tained not less than 43 per cent of protein and that each of the said sacks 
contained not less than 100 pounds net weight of the said article, whereas, in 
fact and truth, the said article did contain less than 43 per cent of protein, to 
wit, 40.73 per cent of protein, and each of said sacks did not contain 100 pounds 
net weight of the article, but did contain a less amount. 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 May 12, 1924, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $150.
HOWARD M. GOBE, Secretary of Agriculture.