(N. J. 109.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF COTTONSEED MEAL.
(AS TO PRESENCE OF COTTONSEED HULLS.)
In accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Food and Drugs?
Act of June 30, 1906, and of regulation 6 of the rules and regulations?
for the enforcement of the act, notice is given that on the 12th day of?
May, 1909, in the district court of the United States for the district of?
Indiana, in a proceeding of libel for seizure and condemnation of 600?
sacks, more or less, of a cottonseed product, purporting to be cotton??
seed meal, shipped by the J. Lindsay Wells Company, a corporation of?
Memphis, Tenn., from Tennessee to Indiana, in sacks which bore no?
labels, but which consignment was invoiced and sold as cottonseed?
meal, whereas, in fact, it contained approximately 50 per cent of cot??
tonseed hulls, wherein the United States was libelant and the said J.?
Lindsay Wells Company was claimant, the cause having come on for?
hearing and the said claimant, having admitted the allegations of the?
libel, the court adjudged the product adulterated and misbranded and?
rendered a decree in substance and in form as follows:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF
INDIANA.
UNITED STATES
Six HUNDRED SACKS, MORE OR LESS, OF COTTON-SEED PRODUCT,
purporting to be Cotton-Seed Meal.
\  No. 6921.
Now, at this day, comes the United States attorney for the district of Indiana,?
and J. Lindsay Wells Company, a corporation, claimant and owner of the said
Al?71
three hundred eighty-five sacks of a cotton-seed product, purporting to be cot??
ton-seed meal, by Weaver & Young, its proctors, and this cause now coming on?
to be heard on the pleadings herein, and after due deliberation being had in the?
premises the court finds that all the allegations contained in the libel are true and?
that the United States is entitled to recover herein.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said three hundred?
eighty-five sacks of a cotton-seed product, purporting to be cotton-seed meal,?
are hereby condemned as being adulterated and being sold under the distinctive?
name of cotton-seed meal, under the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act of?
June 30, 1906, and it appearing to the court that the costs in this cause, taxed?
at thirty-two & x^ dollars, have been paid by the claimant, and the claimant?
having filed a good and sufficient bond herein, to the effect that said three hun??
dred eighty-five sacks of a cotton-seed product, purporting to be cotton-seed?
meal, shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of, contrary to the provisions of?
the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906.
It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the marshal be, and he is?
hereby, directed to release the said three hundred eighty-five sacks of a cotton??
seed product, purporting to be cotton-seed meal, and restore the same to the?
claimant herein.
The facts in the case were as follows:
On or about April 22, 1909, an inspector of the Department of Agri??
culture found in the possession of F. A. Nave, Attica, IncL, 600 sacks?
of a product purporting to be cottonseed meal, which had been shipped?
to him on or about April 2, 1909, by the J. Lindsay Wells Company,?
Memphis, Tenn. An analysis of a sample taken from this shipment?
was made in the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of?
Agriculture, and found to consist of approximately 50 per cent of?
cottonseed hulls. It was apparent that the product was both adulter??
ated and misbranded within the meaning of sections 7 and 8 of the?
act; adulterated for the reason that cottonseed hulls had been mixed?
and packed with the cottonseed meal so as to reduce and lower and?
injuriously affect its quality and strength, and misbranded for the reason?
that it had been shipped, invoiced, and sold under the name of cotton??
seed meal, whereas the product contained approximately 50 per cent?
of cottonseed hulls. Accordingly, on April 22, 1909, the Secretary of?
Agriculture reported the facts to the United States attorney for the dis??
trict of Indiana, and libel for seizure and condemnation under section?
10 of the act was duly filed, with the result hereinbefore stated.
H. W. WILEY,?
F. L. DUNLAP,?
GEO. P. MCCABE,?
Board of Food and Drug Inspection.?
Approved:
JAMES WILSON,
Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, November 1, 1909.
Al?71