Notices of judgment under the insecticide act

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Notices of judgment under the insecticide act
Physical Description:
v. : ; 23 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Insecticide and Fungicide Board
United States -- Food, Drug, and Insecticide Administration
United States -- Food and Drug Administration
United States -- Agricultural Marketing Service
United States -- Agricultural Marketing Administration
United States -- War Food Administration. -- Office of Distribution
United States -- Office of Marketing and Services
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Production and Marketing Administration
Publisher:
U.S. G.P.O.
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C
Publication Date:
Frequency:
irregular
completely irregular

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Insecticides -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre:
serial   ( sobekcm )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )

Notes

Dates or Sequential Designation:
Began with no. 73.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
-2041/2066 (Jan. 1951).
Numbering Peculiarities:
Some nos. issued together.
Issuing Body:
Issued by: no. 73-1100, U.S. Insecticide and Fungicide Board; no. 1101/1125-1166/1175, Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration; 1176/1190-1731/1745, Food and Drug Administration; 1746/1762-1790/1800, Agricultural Marketing Service; 1801/1811-1812/1825, Agricultural Marketing Administration; 1826/1840-1885, Food Distribution Administration; 1886/1895-1896/1910, War Food Administration, Office of Distribution; 1911/1925, War Food Administration, Office of Marketing Services; 1926/1949-2041/2066, Production and Marketing Administration.
General Note:
Description based on: 1101/1125 (Dec. 1928); title from caption.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 004700296
oclc - 13957905
lccn - sn 86034178
Classification:
ddc - 632.951 U61
System ID:
AA00008549:00001

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text











..
... .. ? :
; *x : tj -3:" ,;\ ",

gW "a t" :^ 1" *"*'"' ""j:. .. ,,,


rtment


msncXcmnc ADMNImmSTRATON


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


!i* tg, 4 Er ~
:1 l.a..


a.t to. section 4 of the ainsecticide act]


4E%:ijEi: *E *
H
/1." '"
7
...


* IV.
.. 4.~
a
-a..
.' I
*


1101-1125


*,', 14 Hi, .1 ; ,,
4
Becretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., December .i
" *.
r dofSanflor. U. S. v. Renaud et Cle of Amerlea.
k ee. .Informatlion placed on Sle. (I. & F.


8, 19281


Ples of
No. 1411.


RB .)
2ththe United 'States attorney for the District of Massa-
it.a'a report by the Secreta-y of Agriculture, filed in the
fle United States for said district an information against
Aerica, a corporation, Boston, Mass., alleging shipment by
folation .of the insecticide act of 1910, on or about July
&tate of Mhs .s&c.usetts into the State of Rhode Island, of a
, Whlwa' mimsbranded insecticide and fungicide within the


|.g.^ .e grtiele was alleged in the information for' the reason
..tea"", to wit, "SAnifor Automatic Desodoriser For Purifying
.: ... ..*;'. The most poWerful of antiseptics Hygienie
mfabm ,. xborhe on the label afllxed to the bottles containing the
. ai the statements, to wit, "Saniflor Floral Disinfectant. Sani-
.tae to the publice in the fofm of small and elegant bottles fur-
M.iata. powers which have the property of slowly evaporating the
. ti.i 'stems are immersed. By this means an antiseptic and
ftofour Is Obtained 'Saniflor' is the most hygienic
.. N. nd ever introduced. 'Saniflor' is employed particularly
K'of platces. where the air may become vitiated, such as
4pg p.'waltIng-rooms, cinemas, theatres, music-halls, and lava-
|1FBSaniflor floral Disinfectant Remove the cork, then
. of the flower in the.bottle. The bottle can then be placed where
... .e... not to. let..the flowers be in contact with anything, for
W:potation takes place much quicker. Saniflor' will then.
.rff.ltf ..fl.d disinfecting the air for two to three months with-
..| .* 'Sanifor' is made of a refined essence,
^ae .".^. a tentst, such as boudoirs, wardrobes, and.
..n5Mageend clotlths..with..a most healthy and sweet perfume.
m'. q.ltn' from mota", bo.a e in the circuelars accompanying
Wl -ai, Amisleading, and bir reason of the said statements


I:... -


ture


I.the,
3q:f : .: *


s911 us








* II:


lion.


SOn.
kota,
Court
hart, I


:


Milbrandlta of
Plea atof guilty.
March '1, 192%, 1
acting upon a rep
of the United Sti
Trading as Airdhai


Ham


w


3. Don
SS SM


.. Da-~
bidet. 'ii


fendant, on or about August,4 1925, friom the State of South Dakt
State of Iowa, of a quantity of Hat'?s fld-O-Lice tablets, which t
branded insecticide within the meaning the insecticide act of 1910 Misbranding. of the article"w as qI .. in thej "nfqati4*. top
that the statements, to wit, 'Htart' sI-O-Lice Tablets'tor P6,1t
Must be given to poultry in their drinking water," borne on the l.1
cartons containing the said'articles, and "Rid-O-Lfce Tablets Direq
and dissolve three Rid-O-Lice tablets to. each quart of clear drik
borne on the circulars accompanying the "said article, were fapi
leading, and by reason of the said statements the article was 'W
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that they .:
that the article, when used as directed, would rid poultry of liUce, w
fact and in truth, it would not. ::
On March 21, 1927, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the
tion, and the court imposed a fine of $50. ..
W. M. Janw eetry of Ag


1108.

On
Penns
Distri
P.C.!


uolV'9
.q~y. 91 H
d
ed ted
n.h."
SSI ** C
'eyes',
-s
'I I
1nfon~&%:nIs
4
r ...
n4tgep. H **I
I


Adulteration and dalbrandin* of Tomson's Red Seal...eLi
lime. U. S. v. P. C. Tom son & Co., Inc. Plea of nolo conteat
Fine, $50. (I. & F. No. 1442. Dom. No. 22059.) .
August 19, 1927, the United States attorney for the Eastern bhstri
ylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed i.
ct Court of the United States for said district an information ag
Fomson & Co., Inc., a corporation, Philadelphia, Pa., alleging shipme


eat


said company, in violation of the insecticide act of 1910, on or about Sep8
15, 1926, from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of New Yorke of .8 q
tity of Tomson's Red Seal chlorinated lime, which was an adulterated and
branded insecticide and a fungicide within the meaning of said act. '
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in
the statements, to wit, "Active Ingredients-Available Chlorine, 30% InT
Ingredients-Calcium & Magnesium Chlorides, etc., 70%," borne on the 1i1
affixed to the cans containing the said article, purported and representedI
standard and quality were such that it contained available chlorine in '
proportion of not less than 30 per cent, and contained inert ingredients, a
is to say, substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate inseeW4
fungi, in the proportion of not more than 70 per cent, whereas the stre
and purity of the article fell below the professed standard and quality izn
which it was sold, in that it contained less than 30 per cent of avail.1


chlorine and m
Misbranding
borne on the
statements the
the purchaser,


ore than 70 per cent of inert ingredients.
was alleged for the reason that the above-quoted state
label were false and misleading, and by reason of the


article
in thi


less than 30 per cent
inert ingredients, whe
and more than 70 per
Misbranding was a


was labeled and branded so as to deceive and misled.
at they represented that the said article contained u
of available chlorine and not more than 70 per cent i
reks it contained less than 30 per cent of available chlorg
cent of inert ingredients.
alleged for the further reason that the statement, to wi


- t ~.* *t A S .5-s.


yg. mW.1illlIllihill a


.






~Hi
E9~h- 19
H.'., 1101-1125

SI
4~l.:*r I.t (S *
... On Au
* 7P isylv,
I-I tbhrlistv
ndntx Lu


r- mteisol
: antef 'oi
sedate' dt
fagafc144d
h2ult
tKgit'thes
greatient
trainingg ig
-that It-4
..and cii
.sttowire
.s?


.32 per c
liftr
\erwMr


NOTICES


I
SIJDCMENT


K l a V I h. i*** L '-' h A ''*'^ 'l-"11 *." I'' 1-.
railp udf unlttoraudtiut of' BoooAneae spry ownertd
I Ij~l %eek~i it Co., Idtf Ptea o.rrl cojei~re .ne *UO:
'.rNo; 1489..: Dom. NeB m20585, 21565.) -I ... 1 .
kst 30, 1927, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
M,,aettng tpon a'a teporti by the Seeretary.*of Agticwlture, filed in
Itsvom'tbof tb6 United States for' said district an information 'against
it & 6., Ini,; a corporatiti, Philadelphia, Pa., alleging 'shipment'
ilany, idi violation of.,t iihsecticide act of 1910, iUttwo coisign-
i1bbttt April 6, 1925, hind' March 20, 1926, respecti bly, from the
adrtrlvahia'nito'the State of Maryland, of quantities' of Bordo-Ar-
Spowdered, which was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide and
Mithin the meaning of said act.
Son of th- article was alleged in 'the informatifti for 'the reason


btements,' to wit, "Arsenate of Lead, not l
tiotz imore.than 53.0%," borne on the label
e said article, represented that its standard
.tined arsenate of lead in a' proportion of
I .tinert ingredients, namely, substances
1i. or mitigate insects or fungi, in a propoi
hereas the strength and purity of the article


ess 'than 32.0% Inert In-
affixed to the.drums con-
d and'quality were such
not less than 32 per cent


that
rtion
e fell


Itrdd quality 'under which it was sold,' in that it
pt of arsenate of lead and more than 53 per cent
ding of the article was alleged for the reason


reenate of Lead,


not less


than


32.0%


Inert


db hot prevent, de-
not greater than 53
below the professed
contained less than
of ihert ingredients.
that the statements,


Ingredients,


.I'II thi f.68%,F borne on the label, were false and misleading, and by r
. saaid smtatements the article was labeled and branded so as to decei
I e.lthh purchaser, in that they represented that the said article
nq less than 32 per cent of arsenate of lead and not more than
:... -o nert. ingredients, whereas the said- article contained less than
-ii arnate of lead and more than 53 per cent of inert ingredient
SAdultation was alleged with'respect to the portion of the pro
f April 6.4925, for the further reason that the statements, to wit, "
.lMte D Powdered Analysis Copper (Cu) not less than 15.0%
ji Lad, net less than 32.0% Inert Ingredients, not more than 53.0%
ni- Oz.0 (As&O.) 9.8% Total Arsenic as Metallic 6.4%," borne c
"| represented that the article consisted of a mixture of Bordeaux an
ill. nate, w rea it did not consist of a mixture of Bordeaux and le
Ibut antter substance, to wit, calcitum arsenate, had been substitute
il;- the saiB article.
I Mishbiding was alleged with respect to the said portion of the
the fuirer reason that the statements, to wit, "Lucas Dry Powd
.Arsenatel7 Lbs. to 50 gals. of water is approximate
.i -strengtA'to 2 lbs. Arsenate of Lead," borne on the label
iand mi .ding, and by reason of the said statements the article wE
.. as to d*v and mislead the purchaser, in that the said statements
that Ids of the article to 50 gallons of water would contain
lead' aHate, whereas 7 pounds of the said article to 50 gallons of
met 2 pounds of lead arsenate. Misbranding was alleged wii
the a prtion for the further reason that it consisted partially
star ingredients, to wit, substances other than lead arsenate,
-=seiai copper (expressed as metallic copper), and the name an
amo.Stt each of said inert substances so present in the artik
istatte mainly and correctly on the label affixed to each of the dn
lifHt :I^Hh ertolc.inm* nrin lic.n fhnraTn warnQ +Tha mnoma oii namrnan


eas
ve
[e
53
32


not more
on of the
and mis-
contained
per cent
per cent


s.
duct sh
Bordo-


Arsena
Total


n the
d lead


ipped
Arse-
te of
Arse-
label,
arse-


ad arsenate,
d in part for


Ie;
P
lel
ly
I,
bs
.r


product I
red Bor(
equal
were fal
labeled
present


2 pounds of
water would
th respect to
of inert sub-
calcium ar-
d percentage
?le were not
urns contain-
iton nmninrnt







*, 4 *- :
'"


vi lation of the insecticide act of 1920, on or out &Apri 1, : fi he,.
StM 6ofQhio into th Sbt- PenzwjlvaEItdA qtt3 & i
cyanide, which was an adulterated and misbranded insectiaide within th.mea- ..I:
ing of said act : ." .H ..'. ..,. *." ., ---*.I
Adulteration of the article was alleged in theb iermatQo for the reaSt.l"at.i
the statement, to wit, Granular Sodium. Oyazide NaQW" borne on.tb.. i
affixed ..to the cans containjnag the said .article, represented that its .st|.:!!
and quality were such that it consisted oftsedium cyanide, wheresihe. elia
and parity of the article fel! below theqprofessed. standard. al.. ..a&ty.. ::
which it was. sold, in that it did not consist of;soditim wanide,, bat :4did Gii:,W .
of a mixture of sodium cyanide, sodium' chloride, and sodium carbonate, &4tr.: :_
teration was alleged for the further reafo.nf.that the :statement, "GrE4:fr4
Sodium Cyanide NaCN," borne op the label represented that the: articlJ '.ISr
sisted of sodium cyanide, where. it did .not consist of sodium cypaidg.belu .
other.substances4 to wit, .sodium chloride and sodium carbonate, hadl bee stib& .
stituted in part for twe-said article,. ,: ........2 i.
M'sbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit,: "Orafl*i. .
Sodium Cyanide NaON,"' borne on the label, .was. false and misleading, aad:bpu...
reason of the said statement the. article was labeled so as to deceive and mis atl.
the purchaser, in that the said statement represented that the article coniiste&4.
ofemodium cyanide, whereas it did not, but did consist of a mixture. of Saodt.iz.
cyanide, sodium chloride, and sodium carbonate. '.. : ,. .. ':
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that. the article ieond
partially of inert substances.or ingredients, to wit, substances other thaw son'
cyanide, that is to say, substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel, ori. n (,..
gate insects, and the name and percentage amount of each and every em .
the said inert substances so present in the article were. Dot stated plainly a.*.&tri i


correctly
in lieu th
stance or
percentage
rectly on
On Sep
behalf of


on the label.
ereof, were th
ingredient of
e of the inert
the said label.
tember 12, 192
the defendant


affixed to the cans containing the said article,aor,
e name and percentage amount of each- and everytalb-
the article having insecticidal properties and the til
substances so present therein stated plainly and aE-
= ^.\\.
!7, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on
company, and the court imposed a fine of $25. ..&I


W. M. JARDINE,


Secretary of


Agriflouih.


1106. Misbrandlng- of Lee's llee killer, U. S. v. 38 Cans of Le.' 'ui
Killer. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destwte-
tion. (I. & F. No. 1453. S. No. 180.) ..
On August 22, 1927, the United States attorney for the District of Masase" _:
setts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Disft4*n
Cour: of the United States for said district a libel praying seizure and ..
demnation of 3S cans of Lee's lice killer. It was alleged in the libel that'....
article had been shipped on or about March 10, 1927, by the George H. Lee'. ,H^
Omaha, Nebr., from the State of Nebraska into the State of Massaehusettse, .
tha' having been so transported it remained unsold in the original unbro.jij:
packages at Boston, Mass., and that it was a misbranded insecticide whinni
meaning of the insecticide act of 1910. .
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that
statements, to wit, Lee's Lice Killer is intended principally for use about |
poultry house, for chickens, keeping rid of mites also the var q-.
forms of feather lice and body lice that habitually remain upon the chick
See other part of this label for directions," borne on the label affixed to





Pt
1.

V

fr.HI H

I.":.
I:..."
U H
Elk
=IH
p.:::
I:


II

1101-112)

.the
are fre[
the sail
whippedd S
:.:statemei
the pur4
would 14
From li4
liee on$
whereas
purpose.
On .
iAent o
court t


F
H
I,
..V.I.


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT


'.ans,. together with the statement, to wit, "L
-.om lice," used" in connection 'with a picture o
label, and certain statements contained in the
lith the article, were false and misleading, and
iB the article was labeled and branded so as to
maser, in that they represented that the article, w
sfn effective remedy against body lice on fowls,
w, would be an effective remedy against lice on
hebns, and against chicken lice and all vermin


tt

to
0
m


II


e article,


when used as directed,


would not be effective for the said


ber 27, 1927, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg-
)ndemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the
the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
S* W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.


. 1107. lbrandlng of S in 1 liee and mite re
bottles and 453 Bottles of 2 in 1 LIee a
;thcreem of condemnation, forfeiture, an
... 40, 1407. S. Nos. 171, 173.)
On e 2 and June 14, 1926, respectively, the
the J ern District of Arkansas, acting upon
Agricuo ure, filed in the District Court of the U'
: .libels pIsying seizure and condemnation of 741 bo
... mover.. It was alleged in the libels that the
I on qr about March 29, 1926; and in part o
2 i ,1 Poultry Supply Co., Kansas City, Mo.,
o tM State of Arkansas, and that having beei
Id It Little Rock, Ark., and that it was a n
meeting of the insecticide act of 1910.
SIt was alleged in the libels that the article
.. ten~i~ts, to wit, "Trade" '2 In 1' Mark Rids
.EP!oviS. The Contents of This Bottle is Suffi
k.his separation is absolutely Guaranteed to rid
1 ^{ lice'zmites, stick-title fleas or blue-bugs," "'2 ii
.jI|| Ii'halkess and non-poisonous. It will not tain
. i a Wonderful tonic and blood-purifier for young


?mover. U. S. v. 22 Dozen
nd Mite Remover. Default
Ld destruction. (I. & F. Nos.


United
reports
waited St
)ttles of
article
n or ab
from t


1 States attorney for
by the Secretary of
ates for said district
2 in 1 lice and mite
had been shipped in
out June 3, 1926, by
he State of Missouri


a so transported it remained
misbranded insecticide within


vas
and
icien
poul
n 1'
it th
and


misbranded in that the
Prevents Lice and Mite
t to make 200 Gallons.
try of all parasites such
Lice and Mite Remoter
ie flesh or the eggs. It
old fowls," "Directions:


*.ef. tbtle tightly corked. Mix ten (10) drops of '2 in 1' Lice and Mite
.No with every gallon of drinking water. If possible, do not use metal
Sqrii'tfjg4 for the Water," borne on the labels affixed to the bottles contain-
itg tie said article, were false and misleading, and by reason of the said
'statenzts the artkle was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mb-
lead the purchaser, in that they represented that the said article, when used
as ditr.ted, would be an effective remedy against lice and mites and against
all poty parasites, such as'lice, mites, stick-tight fleas and blue-bugs, whereas,
lI fact Sad in truth, it would not.
MiE .idin.g was alleged with respect to the portion of the product con-
Migned rch 29, 1926, for the further reason that certain statements, borne in
the dt'W1ars shipped with the said portion, were false and misleading, and by
tea. .f the said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and
misl the purchaser, in that they represented that the article, when used
as d. .d, would be an effective remedy against lice, mites, blue-bugs, stick-
tight Sl.s, and all other insects, vermin, and parasites that infest or attack
poul', whereas, in fact and in truth, it would not.


5
Vl',i
eeeLice Killer. We
if ethickens, borne on
booklets packed and
by reason of the said
deceive and mislead
hen used as directed,
would free chickens
poultry, against body
that infest poultry,








2108. MIabrandlnur of Star parasite remover. U v. Bj flquen BD|li.
* >2'/ Star' sraftte a moter.:. 'D eia~lt;. 4ade en. a 'mnaasiato4i
A* w I.V ^^*H-rt
i. On r about. Mareh. 28 1927, the' UnTtd .States attorney f6r. the 4.
'District of. Louisianacting upon .a repor.:t by the .Stretary of AgtBg
filed seifure and condemnation of % daIsen ,bottles of Star parasite remol
was alleged in the libel that the. article had been shipped by the Star (
(o., Arlingon, Texas, on or about Jul ~, S1926 from the State of Tej
theaState of Louisiana, and that having been. se transported: it remaineC
at Shreveport, La., and that it was a 'misbranded insecticide within their
ing of the insecticide act of 1910. ".
Misbranding of the article was .alleged in the libel for the. reason tflt


statement
Calcium
borne on
and misi
-and bran
' that the


ts, to wit,
Polysuliphi
the label
leading, an
ded so as t
said article


destroy, repel, or m
and contained inel
repel, or mitigate
whereas the said a
. apd more than 71 p
Miabranding was


:tlh


* ~t.n.I
I USI~4'f~


"Analysis-Active Ingredients, 29 per cent-.nlphr L.:i.ta, 4
ide, Calcium Thiosulphate, Inert Ingredients. 71 peie .i-fl ii
affixed tothe,bottles containing the said article, wel.false:.)
d by reason of the said statements the article wasdlsbeledt;
o deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that they reprse. .
Scontained active ingredietits, i. e, substances that prevnut..e^^
itigate insects, in the proportion of not less than 29 per ct:iiiiiii
t ingredients, L e., substances that do not prevent,, des.ui...4
insects, in the proportion of not more than 71. peas
article contained less than 29 per cent of active ingre:its
er cent of inert ingredients. "..i'i


alleged for the further reason


that the statements,


"A disease,. preventative," "Star Parasite Remover A :*Ndi, t
Remedy and Iparasite remover Directions: For grown f
add 15 drops to one gallon of .drinking water or milk; 10 drops fy ia
chicks given in mash feed', give teaspoonful for each 100:fowls., Gi l,,
day for 5 days, then wait 10 days and repeat-.after. three tr.eatmp
5 days each-to keep fowls free of intestinal worms, and parasites 4.4
blood sucking lice-mites, fleas and blue bugs. Give in feed or wath
each week *. Our Guarantee: Star Parasite Remover is
to rid poultry of all intestinal wotms, and parasites of all blood .
lice, or mites, fleas and blue bugs, if above directions are followed. q
will refund the purchase price. Star Parasite Remover Di. .
* For dogs with mange give on bread each day for ,..'g
repeat if needed Our Guarantee Star Parasite Remover. e g
teed to rid poultry of. all intestinal worms and parasites if...
directions are followed It is a good tonie, .blood purtfier,_
builder and disease preventative,".' borne on the labels of the said
and the statements, to wit, "Star Parasite .Remover .* Simplei
Easy to Use Add 15 drops to one gajlon of ,fowl ,drinking, water or.
15 drops in moist feed for every 25 fowls. Give 5 days. Thqn wait 10|
Then give 5 days again. Then wait 10 days. and give 5 more dayssa .'
these 3 treatments give once each week and you will have fowls free
bloodsucking Lice, Mites,, Fleas, Blue Bugs. Also free of all intestinal .
intestinal parasites, etc.. Results Guaranteed, or money. refunded After.|
Star Parasife Remoyer'diligently ,for 60 days, it Yyoui .aee .not thori
convinced that your. fowls (chickens and turkeys), are. not being kept
,of destructive insects, intestine! ,. wprm.s, and parasites, kept hardie., lea
produce more eggs, tl.en bring back the bottle and get your money (all d
iare authorized to refund the money to any one not.satisfied.) *
inonials: For three years I have used Star Parasite Remover and. durn




: j.*. :.. H.1 .:
** ** : ,. .: *




'Ti'. tnonial*
i;.:: .pime bae 1
"I .. ..~e

= .. rett -i. .-Tad-il
H- tind o0 asites. Hav
good h1 "es and strong
., .etterkeep th
S.:acom I bytg the said
.. .of the.. aid statements
S..and cad the purcha
used directed, would
all blh sucking lice,
and a wlother parasites
....ent nange in dogs,
tial Wms and parasi
.uder 111 conditions, be


NOTICES' lOF' JUDGMENT


i*.-,* for fleas on dogs or cats :,. will also
i: For 3 years I have used Star Parasite Remover and
tad no trouble or loss from ..:P worms or any
e had no sickness among flock, got.. lots of eggs, had


Young
em free
article,
the arti
Lser, in
prevent


chicks a wonderful
of insects and healthy," borne
were false and misleading,
cle was labeled and branded
that they represented that tl
'disease, would be an effective


mites, fleas, and blue
that infest poultry, v
would rid poultry of
tes, and would act as
a good tonic, blood p


ducer, and disease preventive,
variety of blood sucking mites
al in, tinal worms and parasites
Worms:and parasites, would ke
cau. to produce more eggs,
.ot .p ty, would-be effective in
, g.gai worms and all types and
preYeit sickness among poultry
condit.l s, cause good hatches o
..t.ee..froem insects and would, un
he.althyi .whereas the said article;


ve. .wthe above purposes.
,Mi ending was .alleged for the
.mplgtely of inert substances or
event, destroy, repel, or mitigate
..Si'ame .and percentage amount of e
. Iniagre4 .nt so present in the article
.:the lt el affixed to the bottle contain
i Onuune 20, 1927, no claimant ha
*pt coueemnation and forfeiture was
:t:atg e product be destroyed by the
S... *
'. ...


110. :Adn aeration and
f. ir SulphEumuR-, t N
.,:. Spray U.wnufmei
':1424. DIin. Nos.
At e Taiintary 1927
for RB Southern Distri
dist. acting upon a
DistI tourt aforesaic


would be
on fowls,


U


bugs,


poult
on t]
and
0 as
ie art
reme


against


ry remedy
he circular
by reason
to deceive
icle, when
dy against
all insects


rould be effective in the tr
all types and varieties of in
a disease preventative, wo
urifler, health builder, egg I
fective against all types
hat poultry would be free


eat-
tes-
uld,
pro-
and
of


would keep poultry free from all intestinal
them hardier and healthier, and would


would be of practical value in the fattening
the treatment of mange, would be effective
varieties of parasites infesting poultry, would
under all conditions and would, under all
>f strong young chicks, would keep poultry
der all conditions, cause poultry to remain
when used as directed, would not be effec-


further reason that the arti
ingredients, i. e., substances
insects, when used as direc
ach and every such inert
were not stated plainly and
ing the said article.
ving appeared for the proper
entered, and it was ordered
United States marshal.
W. M. JARDINE, Secr'etary of A


cle consist
that do
ted, and
substance
correctly


ty, judgment
by the court

griculture.


lico-
wers
. No.

and
said
the
pray


^C,.a corporation, Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment by said company,
Ii on of the insecticide act of 1910,. on or about April 11, 1925, from the
W. O~.lifornia into the State of Arizonia, of quantities of Nico-Sulphur-Dust
L'i.co-Sulphur-Dust No. 8, and Nico Garden Dust, which were adulterated
brannded insecticides and fungicides within, the meaning of said act.
ration of the &atticles was alleged .in the information for the reason
statements, to Wit, Sulphur, not less than 45.00% Inert Ingredients
IiDust, compospig carrier, not more than 53.25%," with respect to the
tlti r-D]ust No. '5, "Sulphur 40.00%," with respect to the Nico-Sulphur-


misbranding of Nleo-Sulphur-Duf t No. 5, 1
o. 8, and NIeo Garden Dust. U. S. v. Walnut Gro
turning Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $260. (I. & F
20425, 20427, 20428.)
term of the United States District Court within
ct of California, the United States attorney for
report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
San information against the Walnut Growers S


.


..
.
.


t






nissan
-


-


. under which they were mid, in that the Nicoaulphar-Dushf.r c ant
than 45 pert cent of sulpihur, .and more than S,5 vpeFnt st .wr..?Z
the Nico-Sulphur-Dust No. 8.contained less than 40 pdreet oiuluiphur,
Nico Garden Dust contained less than 2.8 per cent ofe.nitinme lel tha
cent of sulphur, and more!than 52.2 per cent ofinertingredieatsm;
Misbranding of the said Niceo-Sulphur-Dust No, 5 was allegedgedr th
that the statements "Sulphur, not less than .4500% Inert. Igrsfienta
Dust, composing carrier, not more than 53-25%," "A preparation ma


dially for Asparagus Rust,"I borne on the
leading, and by reason of the said statements the
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
that the said article contained not less than 45 per
more than 53.25 per cent of inert ingredients, and
"would satisfactorily control asparagus rust, whereas
than 45 per cent of sulphur and more than 53.25 per
and, when used as directed, wodftd not satisfactorily c
Misbranding of the Nico-Sulphur-Dust No. 8 was a
the statements, to wit, "Snlphur 40.00%," and "A pr
for combinations such as Gtape Leaf Mi
dew," borne on the label, were false and misleading,
statements the articlewas labeled and branded so
the purchaser, in that they represented that the artic
40 per cent of sulphur, and, when used as directed, w
all mildews of grapes-= and peas, whereas it contained


label, were false n...
article wa' I...
in that they tepirbK. ::
cent of sulphur m l mmm 'mmm
, when used -as d.in-i
the article eontainM .1 L!!t
cent of inert ibgr$I nta, i|
control asparagus rflt.m ..i
ii" a." ... "i
alleged for theatre slaiatt :i
eparation made espota* .:*
lidew, -Pea l:"..
and= by reason of thelsi|r:rd
is to deceive and iM"t .slf ',ti


le-contained not less thrne I
would satisfactorily estr.ol
I less than 40 per cif of


sulphur, and, whe
dews of grapes an
Misbranding of
statements "Nicot
per cent, Inert Inj
per cent," "A prep


lab
art
in
cen
per
con


n used i
id peas.
the Nio
ine,..jnot
gredient
aration


el, were false and mis
idle was labeled and b
that they represented i
t of nicotine, not less 1
cent of inert ingrediei
trol all mildews, when


I


s directed,


would


not satisfactorily


control


o Garden Dust was alleged for the reason tl
less than 2.8 per cent, Sulphur, not less thal
Special Dust composing carrier, not more tha
made specially for mildews,"-borne
leading, and "by reason of the said statement
randed so as to deceive =and' mislead the pure
hat the said article contained not less than !
han 45 per cent of sulphur, and not more =tha
nts, and, when used as directed, would satisfa
eas the said article contained less than' 2.8 ye


of nicotine, less than 45 per cent of sulphur, and more than 52.2 per
inert ingredients, and, when used as directed, would not satisfactorily c ..,=
all mildews. I ':
Misbranding of the Nic-Sulphur-Dust'No. 8 and the .Nie. Garde~. Dus.l
alleged for the further reason that the.statement "Net 3Veitb.5 Po.ds,." ::;i
respect to the former, and "Net Weight 2 Pounds," with ,respect to the la ,:.,
borne on the label, represented that the contents of the ,packages:contai
the articles were 5 pounds, or 2 pounds, as the case might be, of the res
articles, whereas the contents of each of the said packages were ntcot noi
stated on the outside thereof, in that they contained less .tban representedt .
Misbranding of the said Nico-Sulphur-Dust No. 8 and the Nico Qatden
was alleged for the further reason that the articles consisted partially of
ingredients, to wit, substances other than nicotine and sulphur,.that.is to
substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or
and the name and percentage amount of each and every one of the inert '
stances or ingredients so present therein were not stated plainly and cor
on the labels affixed to the packages containing the said articles, nor, in
thereof, were the name and nercentare amount of nach and Over aunhatan mu


I




H2.H
ii-ii.2' -T


tbi W.' 0t0t *~1f. a' c fcpdtM' Dettoit,
lid company, in violation of the insecticide .ct
., ffrq tli .tate of Michigan into te State of .
Sof .ealcui., which .was. an adulterated and n
&mieanig of said act. .
|iqn of the. article was alleged in the inform
Ptemeate,,.to wit, "70% Active Ingredient.: Ca


. int$. .Total Arsenic (
pX 26. ; equivalent to
(Expressed as percentuim
.to 0.75% arsenic oxide,"
tthe said article,. represent
gained calcium arsenate .i


Jxpresse
40% Ar
of Met
borne
ted thai
a the pr


MI1, alleging ship,
of,UlO1, on or about
Indiana, of a quantity
misbranded 'insecticide
ation for the reason
lciumn Arsenate, 30%


cd as jereentum of Metallic Arsenic)
senic Oxide. Arsenic in water solu-
allic Arsenic) not more thau 0.5%;
on the label affixed to the packages
I its standard and quality were such
portion of no: less than 70 per cent,


.nqrt ingredients, i. e., substances that do not prevent, dest
-e insects, in he. proportion of not more than 30 per cent,
pressed as per centum of metallic arsenic, in the propoit
S26.1 per cent, equivalent to 40 per cent of arsenic oxide, and
)pwater-soluble form, expressed as per ceutum of metallic
*rtion of no. more than 0.5 per cent, equivalent to 0.75 p(
side, whereas the strength and purity of the article fell
, standard and quality under which it was sold. in that it
a 70 per cent of calcium arsenate, more .han 30 per cen


nts, and less than 26.1 per cent
Arsenic, and contained more t
form, expressed as per centum
Epr the further reason tha: the
...contained a substance, to wit.
6 to such vegetation, when used


(Misanding was
Ire on the label


of arsenic, expressed
han 0.5 per cent of
of metallic arsenic.


as per
arsenic
Adulter


article was intended for
water-soluble arsenice, v
as directed.


i alleged for the reason that the above-
were false and misleading, and by reason


.. entdthe article was labeled and branded so as to deceive
-iprch'. er, in that they represented that the said article
:-M-sene in the proportion of not less than 70 per cent, c4
:. ediat.s in the proportion of not more than 30 per cent,
..pree.d as per cen um of metallic arsenic, in the proportio
25 ^p cent, equivalent to 40 per cent of arsenic oxide, and
ti ws.r-soluble form, expressed as per centum of metallic a
pnmy;of not more than 0.5 per cent, equivalent to 0.75 p4
Soxide, whereas the article contained less than 70 per cent of
.. mowt n 30 per cent of inert ingredients, and less than
anee ,expresed as per centum of metallic.arsenic, and cor
@.5 peaent of arsenic in water-soluble form, expressed a
metalis arsenic.
Mi.aMnding was alleged for the further reason that the s
:'Wslptaying-Use 3/4 .to 1 pound to 50 gallons of spray.
L'mi.t ur or Bordeaux Mixture, always add milk of lime
2 oriipounids of stone lime to each 50 gallons of water,


S* Caution-Do not use on stone fruits such
etc. fl y Dusting for Potatoes, Tobacco and certain
oug .lt:x one pound of..Celcium Arsenate with two
rateft .Jame Guaranteed when packed to meet specificati
mol U. 8. Department of Agriculture, for cotton
bora o. the said label, were false and misleading,. anc
sta ents the article was labeled and branded so as
J-^--.uk-rfiaafW|1e.J a.nm.. I fl^ n,&^ hi,. ..j..._ .*J n c^ n 4--n A 43, n 4.&l 1 a n ..14^ n- lJ


as peu
vegets
or th]
ons o1
boll
I by r
to de


use


'tich


roy, repel,
contained
ion of not
contained
arsenic, in
er cent of
below the
contained
t of inert
centum of
in water-
ation was
on vegeta-
would be


quoted statements
of the said state-
and mislead the
contained calcium
contained inert in-
contained arsenic,
n of not less than
contained arsenic
rsenic, in the pro-
er cent of arsenice
calcium arsenate,
26.1 per cent of


stained
Ls per


more than
centum of


statements. to wit,
Unless used with
made by slaking
or diluted spray.
ach, plum, cherry,
Lble Crops---Thor-
ree pounds of hbyv-
SBureau of Ento-
weevil poisoning,"
eason of the said
ceive and mislead


.@ feW es
4:ble fori
tm iva

#Itaiu
. 4-ittai




++
++ ++
++. 1
+ ++.
+* .


1113.. M3Jbrmsaimng.rw. z Stryr .st$,grfq tao ..4oa a^me.r. .
I ., Sentry Proqfutstuq Ptae oa notef s 4teu i 44rt.i$1. 4-i
'o. 1418. Doam. NoSl2ai.) ,- ,' -,1" 7^ = .h
On utOber 28, 19u, the TUited States attorneyflbf thb 1telh at M .
aetts, acting upon a report By the Secrdtary of fAgrialctiae in lb !
trict Court of the United States for said district at"bnfbxzt ittm aga. |l
Sentry Products Co., a. corporation, Bbston, Mass., allegbig ibipuent .||
company in violation of the insecticide act of 1910, on 0o a.t Match ||
from the State of Massacltiusetts into the State of Oaltflitq"ofa ft
of Sentry anti-germ telephone deodorizer, which wass a uiiab d.'ed -.
within the meaning qf slid act. 'I' .- '. .
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the thformation for the reakff
the statements, to wit, "Anti-Germ Telephone Deodorizer An e
Telephone Deodorizer 'Device With Two Anti-Germ CArtridgese *-:'* '
reactions Place the Device on Telephone Transmitter-the Rim of' the ..
snaps over Phone Mouthpiece. Keep One Anti-Germ Cartridge in the -
Bowl. Anti-Germ Telephone Deodorizer Device Sctentfien in -
pal. With one Cartridge in Bowl it provides a constant supply of "AtbC
Gas Inside the transmintter," borne on the label affixed to thie 'artonS rF
training the article, Were false and misleading, and by reason of said Mtt
ments the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchasit1
that they represented that the said article, when used as directed, would'(
as a disinfectant, and would have an anti-germ effect, whereas, in fact a
in truth, it would not.
Misbranding was 'alleged for the further reason that the article con4.
partially of an inert substance, to wit, paradichlorobenzene, that is toafi.y
substance which does' not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bactet
and the name and percentage amount of the inert substance so present ta
were not stated plainly and correctly on the label affixed to the carto i
training the article, nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and the .
amount of each and every substance or ingredient of the article having MM
cidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert substances or ingrel -
so present therein stated plainly and correctly on the said label.
On June 14, 1927, a plea of nolo contender to the information was eni
on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $1.
W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of ArisZ ti.
1112. MIsbranding of Lee's lice killer. U. S. v. 67 Cans of Lea 's
Killer. Default decree of condemnation, forfeltete, and destN
tion. (I. & F. No. 1302. S. No. 156.) : .
On August 22, 1924, the United States attorney for the Northern Distrlq
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 1.
trict Court of the United States for said district a libel praying seizure t
condemnation of 67 cans of Lee's lice killer. It was alleged in :the libel .I
the article had been shipped by the GeorgelH. Lee Co., Omaha, JNebr., -
about July 3, 1924, from the State of Nebraska into the State of. TexawJ
that having been so transported it remained unsold at Fort Worth Texas,.
that it was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the insectielde
of 1910. I :
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that
statements, to wit, "For Body-Lice on Fowls.-Apply Lee's Lice Killer
ally to the roosts an hour or so before chickens go to roost at night. To.
a wide evaporating surface for killing body-lice it is necessary to arran
12 or 14 inch board' directly under and close up to the roost. Apply *
Tunroa TVlI In ufsh tn Kmb ba.flA awsIA ln4a.+ Acia Cnn. an haka.- *itnwL 4l'n... n a. -




















I.
H,: swaj

HII..*.


......


. NOTICES 'OF S1UDGMENT E

.S: ent-'thb 4Catd lice after first Using Lee's LiesKi.ller.
J j counting yet," I actually counted 484 dead li :'under
jifl;one 'night,, using Lee's Lice Killer," "Ther..rnust h
.. diee Ie under one roost. I didn't try to count* them,"
w aecoimpainyg the article, and the statements, to wit, "1
Itbott the brooders or colony houses or boop boxes as y
Sbet.s 4 r bed''bugs. That is, don't slop it all over the w
400i i:but apply it with a squirt oiler, injecting it into a
ts,felacks and crevices. That is where the lice and m
E that is where to catch them," "There is not much trouble
get Well past the danger point if they are kept well a'
wls or if the old birds are kept well rid of vermin by reg
ce Killer about the roost," "Keep the old fowls rid of v
Iwe of Lee's Lice Killer and you will have little trouble wit
Ss~pect, ..ntil they are old enough to roost," "Lee's Lice
Ised full strength,-never diluted. It takes only a very light
.atomizer,--except for the roosts where it is applied more h
ya.poration to reach into the feathers of chickens roosting a
), once. a month, regularly, of Lee's Lice Killer in order to insure
.Ereedom from lice and other vermin," borne in the booklet
the said article. were false and misleading, and bv reaso


temeats the article was labeled and
.the purchaser, in that they represent


'Idirected, woul
y:4Licks, would
live and mite
an effective
bwls, whereas
h for the said


utOn-ne 23, 1
.'*aanationn
'ib..at t.e product
H H j:.-. .


d be an effective remedy
be an effective remedy a
s, would be an effective
remedy against chicken


the said
purposes.


article,


when


bri
ed
ag
ga.

lie


used


If I had,
the roost
ave been
borne on
Use Lee's
ou would
oodwork,
ll of the
sites hide
with lice
ray from
gular use
ermin by
h chicks,
Killer is
spray,-
eavily to
bove it,"
* full and
ts accom-
n of the


minded so as to deceive and
that the said article, when
,ainst body-lice on fowls and
inst, and would exterminate,
.medy against scaly-leg, and
e and all other vermin that


as directed,


would


not be


927, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court
be destroyed by the United States marshal.


W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of


Agriculture.


Imbranding of Hleger's antiseptic wash for birds. U. S. v. Wnlliam
..HF. Heger and Robert H. Heger (The Heger Products Co.). Plea.s
'of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. No. 1388. Dom. Non. 19348, 20013.)
Hpyfl 16, 1927, the United States attorney for the District of Minnesota,
uon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court
"Uited States tor said district an information against William F. Heger
H. Heger, trading as The Heger Products Co., St. Paul, Minn., al-
bpment by. said defendants, in violation of the insecticide act of 1910,
pticnignments, on or about April 9, 1924, and November 6, 1924, re-
from the State of Minnesota into the State of Michigan, of quantities
r4. antiseptic wash for birds, which was a misbranded insecticide and
iI within the meaning of said act.
bxa~ding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason
statements, to wit, "Heger's Antiseptic Wash for birds A powerful
ei,. Deodorant, Germicide and Disinfectant to rid birds of mites and
me. on the labels affixed to the. packages containing the article, and
totrnts to wit, "k pbwerfuil An'tiseptic, Germicide, deodorant and Dis-
'* Non-poisonotis Germicide," "For Lice or Mites. Dissolve
at,.im the Canary Bath Dish .(aboit four ounces of water). Should
"efse to bathe, wash with absorbant cotton dipped in a solution of


*
I


q







", *. :. I E .*. .. *.*
*
, ,K igubrandiinc ivae,nllego4: (po' ~tfe-ifsrtkw. warsa14* a flthn.e~eq tJ
spartiaDy of :ibert slbsbtancaaor...ingrotigjp to1 gi -s tgawt.ql .hJ -c%:w.1
quinmoune sulphate, ,tant i4 pubstaaws e.thant doapt..pBwgeB.>dmtp ,e
mitigate, insects or, fangi, e.d tko envm, ,m4 l.rorntfa&ge..,gm.it q ,
every one .of the inert suhatances.ae..igr.ienta se ,aphfet.ere i||
stated plainly and coriretly on the label ..afmixed to A. :tb%;
said article, nor, ip lis thereof, were the name and. per .tgQ roowt -' i
and every substance, or ingredient of the article ha0igg ppeyka, .r
cidal properties and the total percentage of the inert. ingreiapts,,o : pr;:i
the article stated plainly and correctly on the said label.. ., .,.. *. .I :.
On April 18, 1927,,the defendants entered pleas of guilty to iQor. ;,t.
and the court imposed a fine.of $50. ... K"..., ,r ..


1114.

On
York,
trict
Rose
ment
June
quant
sectic


SAdul
that th
the car
ity of t
purity
it was


w-
Adulteration and mtfbranding of Sibling cedar ball... 1J. S. v..kSe
Chemical Products Co., Ife. Plea of guilty, Fline, 40. (I. I.
No. 1434. Dom. No. 21366.) :; 9 : .- -:
May 23, 1927, the United States attorney for the Southernf-Distift of hW
acting upon a.report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fil.d in th 'llS
Court of the United States for said district an information' agaains. "i
Chemical Products CO., Inc., a corporation, New York, N.'Y., allgirig fif
by said company, in violation of the insecticide 'act of 1910, O"i of i.it.
5, 1926, from the State of New York into the State of Massachusetts, t*Mt
ity of Silbling cedar ball, which was an adulterated and misbrandedtL-
dido within the meaninr of said ,ast. '. -w:P


teration of
e statement,
tons contain
he article wi
of the article


sold,.


rnaphthalene an
reason that thi
purported and


not,
been
Mi
Ceda
vent
ing.
odor
cide
ceda
than
andI
Ball


but other
substitute
sbranding
r Ball, if
the silver
Silbling


- -. C -


the


e
e


'article
wit, Si
the said
such tha
11 below


was alleged in the information for tlie teneo
lbfidig Cedar Ball," bone on theilabel afflxed 4.
article', represented that the standard andL'jtiL
t if consisted of cedar, whereas the strengthIcd
the professed standard and'-nality under arh


that it did not consist of cedar, but di
d coal-tar neutral oils. Addlteration'w
e statement, to wit, "Silbling Cedar ]
represented that the article consisted
substances, to wit, naphthalene and
d for the said article. ",
was alleged for the reason' that thestA
placed in the silver, chet, will absorb
from tarnishing and el'uiinate the'nee


Cedar


s, Silb
and when hung w
r ball when hunj
the old fashion
throwing moth bI


f hung


d
Ba
0a
o
4

al
;P


Ball. if hung in the cellar will E
ling Cedar Ball is more econom.ca
ill remain effective for the',period
; in the wardrobe is more"effecti
d way of sprinkling liquids,,sprea
calls into the'clothes and closets.


in the cellar will


house," borne on the said labels, we
the said statements the article was
mislead the purchaser, in that they
cedar and, when used as directed,
absorb all the moisture in the silver


a44 eli
insects
mothsI


minate
fork a
and all


the necessity ol
period of .one
other insects,


'consist' of a *!tii'of
s'alIeged forte fetr
ill," borne'o0 the t b'&
f cedar, whereas it-.Mid
al-tar neutral oils, had
--* I = r:3
ients,. t.' Silbing
l the moisture and'
ssity Of constant-p o
absorb. the mnusty c f.:
I thanfl'any jotler' i' .ff
of one "yeak n"tyc
*Wtd nioth*" 'b iii'
ding naithattenefl
* S abli'nt C.


,.:: :1
I!'
.1
H
.4.:.
* HIIUIi


Prevent insects froih grifi'i inti
re false and misleading, nrd' Bf reason
labeled and ,branded so as to 'deceive M
represented that [ihe' article :consiSted&4
would absorb musty cellar odors,' i w
chest, prevent the slver 'frbinm tarnish..


Constant polishing, w'Ould. repafl'
year, ind *1uld"be an effective
and would prevent insects from


'effective agaj
,remedy agal
'tominff 'irto '.l


in


i


i


!


. ..


* -^i




:*: ... .. .. C
: :. *.
.....:*... .. .
. ..


NOTICES OF JUDGMENT


about
latity
hin ti

lt-'thf1
iLs


ted,:


ttadt
H~*e
"4 ti
H.
do
H.
:1 1 2~
:1!,, 5.
H


e.a.i e. .as'the Reliance Mfg. Co., El P&QT<
'tJtoy ^lW tftteu v tIion of .t' ina ticidgh
say 7, 1925, from the State of Texas into the State of
SReliance lice and mite killer, which was a misbranded
caning of id acet.
ig... of the article, was alleged in the information for
Wmaents, to wit, "''Reliance Lice And Mite Killer Given
4*r. Rids Fowls of Lice, Mites and Blue Bus. Stick-


Blood,. Sucking Insect) Pests.
A vermin are4 subject to colds,


.two gallons of water and give
ear quicker than mites and b


.family


. longer
[ 4 or 5
prne on
tr on the
dl state
inser. min


live in the poultry houses and
to clear the whole tribe out, pe
days treatment twice a month
the label affixed to each of
paper wrappers, were false audc
ents the article was labeled so
that they represented that the


exas, alle*-
W:, 1910, on
Iowa, of a
insecticide


the reason
only in the
tight Fleas


* Fowls thathave been in-
Setc. Directions---One tea-
the fowls to drink. Lice and fleas
'lue bugs for the reason that most


attack fowls on the roosts,


ersis
will
the
I mi,
as
art


tant use, of the remedy
keep them permanently
bottles containing the
leading, and by reason
t- deceive and mislead
icle, when used as d -


ld be an.effective remedy against lice, mites, fleas,


. bl and all other blood-sucking insect pests, and a
:i fowls,, whereas, in fact and in truth, it would
i. rding was alleged for the further reason that
,. of inert, substances, i. e., substances that do
I.. litigate insects, and the-name and percentage
s..tu a the said inert substances or ingredients so
|g" plainly and correctly, or at all, on the label affix
Eng. article, nor on the paper wrappers enclosing
O 4..Ober 18, 1926, the defendant entered a plea of g
..an. the court imposed a fine of $10.


blue-bugs, stick-


that infest


listed
troy,
and
were
con-


II vermin
not.


the
not
amo
pres
ed t
the


ulty


article cons
prevent, des
unt of each
ent therein
o the bottles
bottles.


to the informa-


W. M. JARDINE,


Secretary


Agriculture.


abrandinfg of Lee's lice killer. U .S. v. 10 Dozen Cans. of Lee's
Lice Killer. Default decree of condemaation, forfeiture. and de-


.* ^..ruetion. (I. & F. No. 1447. S. No. 176.)
1g4ust 10, 1927, the United States attorney
injj e, acting upon a report by the Secretary
~istourt of the United States for said district
lion of 10 dozen cans of Lee's lice killer.
;article had been shipped, on or about A
.j.,.t. Omaha, Ner., from the, State of


pr


iv... and. that having, been so transported
...iaibroken packages at Memphis, Tenn., and
within the meaning of the.insecticide act
jlqing of the article was alleged in he li
.,to wit,." Lee's Lice Killer is intended p
&9%Juse, for chickens, keeping rid of mites
> their lice. and body lice that habitually


rt of this label for ,directions,"


the Western
Agriculture,
libel praying
: was alleged
14, 1927, by


ebraska


it remain
I that it
of 1910.
bel for t
rincipally
* *


remain


" For Body


n
[1


Gd
~vas


District of
filed in the
seizure and
in the libel
the George


the State of
unsold in the
a misbranded


he reason that the
for use about the
also the various
upon the chickens.


Lice On


Fowls-Apply


se)i.ler liberally to the roosts a half hour before. chickens go to roost
.t ,get a. wide evaporating surface for killing body lice it is necessary
fra.12 or,!.4 inch board directly under and close up against the roost.
s..sfipcKiJler to. both. boards and roost daily for a short time, t1hen
ath regularly. The roost itself, should be a 2 x 2 or a 2 x 4 with top


.::::... .. ,







- TXSEZOTI


N.:&OTvV


1117 Auateratti : uanet; m.Irandsa4 I,#j. f. hqw. 3eawtatu
.. a*d Alena's dry, pQdaterem. Beup t ; ._,
SAllen. Plea of m.It. Fe, ( .' Ti. Ng
2114T, 21149.) .: ,.i :r! .< .-'*'0 ..:-,' *-
On March 16, 1927, the United States attorney fir thb Distrie tA Nel
ae.ing upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculturbe.e lih .the'Distrl|
of the United States for said district an information agatist.Walter-
Pittstown, N. J., alleging shipment by Sthl 'defendant, it 'violatfozt
insecticide act of 1910, in part on or abo at April 17, t924A nd tb pailB
about March 30, 1926, from the State of New Jersey into the State of MU
setts, of quantities of Allen's Bordeauxk mixture paste, and Allei'sBs y w po
Bordeaux mixture, which were adulterated and misbranded fungleideO
the meaning of said act. -' ,f. :
Adulteration of the articles was alleged in the information for th6.
that the statements "Active Ingredient: Copper 10% Inert Ingredient
with respect to the' Bordeaux mixture paste, and "Active Ingredient:
20%, Inert Ingredient 80%," with respect to the dry powdered Bordea,
ture, represented that the standard and quality of the articles were su
they contained 10 or 20 per cent, as the case might be, of copper, and con


inert
fungi,
ease
profei
conta
Adi
and a
former


ingredients, i. e, substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel,
, in the proportion of not more than 90 per cent, or 80 per
might be, whereas the strength and purity of the articles fel
ssed standard and quality under which they were sold, i2
ined less copper "and more inert ingredients than so represent
alteration was alleged with respct to the dry powdered Bordea
portion of the Bordeaux mixture paste, for the further reas
r was intended for use on vegetation, to wit, early growing p


o, IF llf~f~fii^
cent,
.1 beltS A lw*
i- that *t.H.H
tedg. :H'
Ion tht '-r
eriod ast.B^iil
^C SW J--Ki~i 11,-


ing of apples, and the latter was intended for use on vegetation, to wit, f4
and Japanese plums and all growing season application of. apples, and dkM
articles, when used thereon as directed by the labels affixed to the p .H*
would be injurious to such vegetation.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, I
Ingredients, Copper 10% Inert Ingredient 90%," "To obtain a 3-4-50 F
use 7 1/2 lbs. to 50 Gal. Water, To obtain a 4-4-50 Formula use 10 Ibaej
Gal. Water, To obtain a 5-5-50 Formula use 12 1/2 lbs. to 50 Gal. Water, !
respect to a portion of the Bordeaux mixture paste, "Active Ingredents-
per 10% Inert Ingredient 90%," "To obtain a 3-3-50 Formula us" 7 1/
to 50 gal. of water or 3 teaspoonfull to one gal. water, To obtain a
mula use 10 lbs. to 50 gal. of water or 4 teaspoonsfull to one gal. water--
obtain a 5-5---50 Formula use 12 1/2 lbs. to 50 gal. of water, or 5 teaspode
to one gal. water," with respect to the remainder of the Bordeaux mi
paste, and "Active Ingredient Copper 20% Inert Ingredient 80%," TO'.
a 3-3-50 Formula use 3 9-10 lbs. to 50 gal. water. To obtain a' 4-.
mula use 5 1-10 lbs. to 50 Gal. water. To obtain a 5-5-50 Formula use
lbs. to 50 gal. water," with respect to the dry powdered' Bordeaux nl
were false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements the
were labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, it
they represented that the said articles contained 10 per cent, or 20 per
the case might be, of copper, and 90 per cent, or 80 per cent, as the case f
be, of inert ingredients; and when used in the proportions represented
said statements would .produce the equivalent of a 3-&-50 formula, a
formula, or a 5-5-50 fOrmula, as the case might be, whereas the said
contained less copper and more inert ingredients than 'so represented
when use in the proportions recommended, would not produce the eonl.






NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


:.nG. mus| used in order to prevent early blight, late blight,. mildew, etc., it
l. cheap rance for your crop. Use my Bordeaux Mixture o0 your Potatoes,
Q.pes, Iles aqd Truck Crops. Make several applications during the grow-
lgf seas Don't wait until the blight gets ahead of you *," with re-
l t t po. rtion of the Bordeaux mixture paste, the statements, to wit, "Use
* n's eaux Mixture on your Potatoes, Tomatoes, Cucumbers, Melons and
.fl. Truex Crops, Grapes, Currants, Gooseberries, Apples, and all other tree
. Its. Ike several applications during the growing season. Don't wait until
|6u blig ets ahead of you," with respect to the remainder of the Bordeaux
*l aH ulte, and the statementA, to wit, "Use my Bordeaux Mixture on your
.i. tO^ rapes, Apples, and Truck Crops. Make several applications during
4 gro! g season. Do not wait until the blight gets ahead of you," with
*t !'t'the dry powdered Bordeaux mixture, together with the directions for
i.! nin the various formulae as set forth above, borne on the labels, were
*Ip, 'and -misleading, and, by reason of the said statements, the articles were
." led Wid branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they
Wf Bd that a portion of the said Bordeaux mixture paste, when used as
|,| would be effective against early and late blight potatoes, any and
i. i6 of potatoes, grapes, apples, and truck crops, and against all such
las are controllable with Bordeaux mixture, that the remainder of
S.. ordeaux mixture paste could be safely so used for all growing period
:... .. ..of apples and for the spraying of all other tree fruits, and would be
Ij t against all blights of potatoes, tomatoes, cucumbers, melons, all truck
*l pes, currants, gooseberries, apples, and all other tree fruits, and that
Adrltowdered Bordeaux mixture could be safely so used for all growing
S a applications on apples, and would control all blights of potatoes, grapes,
ii aS truck crops, whereas the said articles would not be effective against
'aid.iblights and diseases, and the said dry powdered Bordeaux mixture
"4 -4 ,be safely so used for all growing period spraying of apples, and the
.p ation of the Bordeaux mixture paste could not be safely so used for
r'growthg period-spraying of apples or for spraying of all other tree fruits.
.,islbanding was alleged with respect to a portion of the Bordeaux mixture
tte for the further reason that the statement "Net Weight at time of pack-
|. 2 lbs.," borne on the label, represented that the packages each contained 2
~d~a alof the article, whereas the contents of the said packages were not cor-
..: stated on the label affixed thereto in that they contained less than 2
Iktmsd of the said article.
Mip nding of the articles was alleged for the further reason that they
eonasist partially of inert substances or ingredients, to wit, substances other
a c er expressed as metallic copper, and the name and percentage amount
P ea*er nd every one of the said inert substances or ingredients so present
therel.in were not stated plainly on the label affixed to the cans containing the
Sltile or, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage amount of each
ii. substance, or ingredient of the articles having fungicidal properties
' .tI total percentage of the inert substances or ingredients so present therein
t ly and correctly on the said label.
O.j.b. 27, 1927, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information,
d eCourt imposed a fine of $50.
W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.
*** i.*I ,,
f118. Branding of Carbo-Cresol disinfectant. I. S. v. Meyer Bros. Drug
: *.^O'- Plea of nolo eontendere. Fine, 9250. (I. & F. No. 1344. Dom.
i .. NA 18543.)
t On Fnue 5, 1925, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of


1~









whi. wate 25,' 'sb$lea' in tiiodelitonthtite ai a. L w .
." "" .i.
o4bre.1 n4t the'deardd t ceiwas ant thu die f a o'e ofaat ss

1119. taImbraundsk w '2 i 1' LiH e a d ite remover T con v. .
Bott: re or ane t ae 2w alls W. *2 in 1..r ,liea'yd .teA Pi
( I. &. F. p 1365. Porn. No.. 2MW ,,2045 .
On October 26, Gn5, the :United State, attorney, for, therW putrr aD
Misaeuri, acting, upn .a report by the secretary.ate *gflcsltire, 1
Distriet Court of the United States for isain L i tqe an.d Mremratio
Wallace W. Feeler ,and R8ymond W... gwiney, cpartners,.t.dJ~;gap't
Poultry Supply Co.- Kansas City,. iMo0 iflleghi. ..~j.pment by..gt.d.d
in violation of the insecticide ,ac. to 191f4 two eonsgonmewtu n. .*
September 20, 1924, and October,23, 1924, respectively, from the State .
.uri.into the State.of Texas, of quantities of 2. in 1.lice ando ome -
which was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of said act. :..i
Mibranding of the article was alleged in the information for ihe reai
the statements, to wit, "'2 in 1'.Lice and Mite Remover The contents di|
Bottle is sufficient to make 200 gallons 2 in 1' Lice And Mite. Remover is'S
lutely Guaranteed to. rid chickens, turkeys, pigeons or other poultry of d3
mites, stick-ite fJas; blue-bugs or other parasites. Direetions a
ten (10) or fifteen (15)..drops of '2 in 1' Lice and Mite Remover with o*..
gallon of water or use one teaspoonful to four (4) gallons of water. f
more is to waste it. Give it to your poultry for four or five.days, keeping.
drinking water away from them, and they will be entirely free from |
Repent this process..every two weeks and you will never have to worry b
parasites on your flock," borne on the label aflixed to the bottles contaji
the said art lcle, were false and misleading, and, by reason of the sal ti
ments, the article was labeled. and branded so as to deceive and mni
purchaser, in that they represented that the said article, when used.as 4
would be an effective remedy against lice, mites, stick-tight fleas, .blx erlb
all other insects and parasites that infest or attack poultry, whereas, .1
and in truth, it wasot. no...:. .
On June 8, 1927, the defendant Raymond W. Swinney entered a .
guilty to the information, and the court imposed a fine of $20. On J
1927, the defendant Wallace W. Fesler entered a plea of guilty, .and theit
imposed a fine of $20. .,


W. M. JARDINE, Secretsry of ArI,


1120. Mlsbranding of Shores fly powder bug anad. insect destwwyer.'
v. Shores-Mueller Co. Plea of guilty. Flne, $100 and o0sts.
F. No. 1386. Dom. No. 20020.) .
On February 6, 1926, the United States. attorney for the Northern D!
of Iowa, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, .filed in tb4


trict Court of the United States
Shores-Mueller Co., a corporation
said company, in violation of the
28, 1925, from the State of Iowa
Shores fly powder and bug and ins
ticide within the meaning of said
Misbranding of the article was
that the statements,: "Net 8 Oz.,"
"Net 5 Oz.," with respect to the


for said district an information again
, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, allegtg. s.hipme
insecticide act of 1910, on or. kbdut JaE
into the State of Michigan, of a quanti
sect destroyer, which was a misbranded I
act. .
s alleged in the information for the ,i
with respect to a portion of the product
remainder thereof, borne on the label a


nackares containing the said article, represented that the cc


'U *a. a-. u.n a- n~ta






NOTICES OF


TJDGMENT


g an etectWve remedy against flies and mosquitoes, whereas, in fact
.,it would not: Misbranding. was alleged with resptlct to a portion
ct. for-S.te further reason that the statements, to .wt, Shores Fly


t
~
iH~
H
H
H...
.rC
q
Hnjfl
'S's
HH~
H
lie'
H
"inn"
U:.:
t


ttaiz
pegs

.1kw


,. and. Insect .Deetroyer
options. For. Flies and M
Sthe cracks. and crevices
. Lice on Animals a
others of fowls, being su
ings,, etc. Repeat once
es'death.to bugs and
hair of animals *
* Repeat once"


Sure Death
osquitoes *


Bugs and Insects *
* ...Bedbugs Dust the pow-


Sthe bedstead, and walls-and floors of the
Fowls. Dust freely in the hair of ani-
the body is well covered with the powder


or twice,.
insects.
* being
or twice,"


ckages, were false and misleading,
article was labeled and branded
in that they represented that the


S
Lic
sur
bo
at
so
sai


tokages, when used as directed, would
mgs, mosquitoes, bedbugs, and all othe
gannst lice on animals and fowls, and
. animals, when dusted freely in the ha


chores Fly Powder is harmless
'e on Animals Dust
e the body is well covered with
mre on the labels of certain of
Ld, by reason of the said state-
as to deceive and mislead the
d article contained: in the said
be an effective remedy against
r insects, would be an effective
would be an effective control
ir of the animals and repeated


.- wice, whereas the said article, when used as d
or the said purposes.
Igfdiyg of t4e article was alleged for the further
.ally' or completely of inert substances, to wit,
Wer is, and sand, that is to say, substances that do
itigate insects, and the name and percentage
Sa the said inert substances so present therein w
.l Srtly, on each or any label borne on or affixed to
|the.id..article, nor, in lieu thereof, were the namr
munt of each and every substance or ingredient of t
icidal properties and the total percentage of the inert
rits mEpresent in the article stated plainly and eorrec
Dn September 29, 1926, a plea of guilty to the inform!
half ofthe defendant company, and the court imposed a


M. JARDINE,


directed,


would


not be


r reason that it con-
powdered pyrethrum
not prevent, destroy,
amount of each and
ere not stated plainly
the packages contain-


Sand the percentage
he article having in-
substances or ingre-
tly on the said label.
action was entered on
fine of $100 and costs.


Secretary


AgriouJture.


:i 1,3t. Miabrandlni of liquid fly spray. U. 3. v. Walter S. Bargeam. Plea
: of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. No. 1457. Dom. Nos. 20854. 21367, 21998.)
*. Os.MSeptember 28, 1927, the United States attorney for the Western District
of Michigan, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
istrieA.t9ourt of the United States for said district an information against
alter-:S. Burgess, St. Joseph, Mich., alleging shipment by said defendant, in
a" atia zof the insecticide act of 1910, in various consignments, on or about
.qMarchak,,"and March 9, 1926, and February 5, 1927, respectively, from the State
li'..,Mjoigan in part into the State of Georgia and in part into the State of
S.i*N.assa uettse, of quantities of liquid fly spray, which was a misbranded
:ni .*flO M within the meaning of said act.
i*, o.k'MIfuil&din.g was alleged in the information with respect to a portion of the
iOdU. :t.consigned March 5, 1926, into Georgia and the product consigned March
I"^.:, 1eI and February 5, 1927, into Massachusetts, for the reason that the state-
iamentt:$o wit, "Contents One Half Pint," borne on the label affixed to the cans
IcioIntaxig the article, was false and misleading, and, .by reason of the said
i litteant, nthe article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead
|tlthe piehaser, in that it represented that each of the said cans contained one-


It O. the article, whereas the cans containing the product c
ii. .


signedd into
= A


I







*..:


2 i 1 Poultry Siltppyi, Ri-ains. ii i gsrnrpem
Defendant, in viOlation ioftte- ileeti ide Mt .oIii.tGuks*o
minents, on or about Febaury -5, Marec 29, aanE USTBS, '4MSiect
the State of Missouri,"in paxt into the Stateof Arabtksj" if
the State of Tennessee," of quantities of 2- in 1 lfe -abd mk^'fmc
was a misbranded :insectcide within' the meaidng btmsaid- act. :
Misbranding of the artilee was alleged in the informations for
that the statements, to wit, "'2 in 1' Bids and Preeta Lice
Remover This preparation is absolutely-'Guaranteed to
parasites such as lice, mites, stick-tite fleas or blue-bugs. '2 tn 1


Mite


Remover


is har


bottle tightly corked.
with every gallon of
bottles containing the
tents of This Bottle
the flesh or the eggs.
and old fowls," borne
and misleading, and, t
and branded so as to di
that the said article,
against lice and mites
stick-tight fleas, and bl
On June 21, and J
of guilty to the inform


mess and non poisonous Direetio
Mix ten (10) drops of '2 in 1' Lice and Mite '.
drinking water," borne on the labels taffixedr...!
article, and the further statements, to wit, "MB .
is Sufficient to make 200 Gallons," "It Wqill .
It is a wonderful tonic and blood-purifier ik
on the labels of a portion of the product, we
)y reason of the said statements, the article was
eceive and mislead the purchaser, in that they tep
When used as directed, would be an effective
Sand against all poultry parasites, such asolice, .
iue-bugs, whereas, in fact and in truth, it wotild nOl.-'
une 22,.. 1927, respectively, the defendant entered *
nations, and the court imposed fines totaling'$SO.- -
W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of 'Agr&f.


1128. Adulteration and inimbrandlang of Allen's dry powdered armqu
calcium. U. S. r. Walter. A. Allen. Plea of guilty.
(I. & F. No. 1446. Dom. No. 21146.) *
On September 20, 1927, the United States attorney for the Districit
Jersey, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
District Court of the United States for said district an information
* Walter A. Allen, .Pittstown, N. J., alleging shipment by said defend
violation of the insecticide act of 1910, on or about March 30, 1926, fH
State of New Jersey into the State of Massachusetts, of 12 packages of.
dry powdered arsenate of calcium, which was an adulterated. an& miWM
insecticide within the meaning of said act. ."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reasm
the statements, to wit, "Active ingredient Tricalcium Arsenate, not lee
69% Inert ingredient, not more than 31% Total arsenic (as metallic
less than 26% Equivalent to Arsenic Oxide, not less than 40% Arm
water soluble forms (as metallic) not more than %%," borne On thi
affixed to the packages containing the said article, represented that itse
ard and quality were such that it contained calcium arsenate in-the prow
of not less than 69 per cent, contained inert ingredients, that is to
stances that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, in tahe
tion of not more than 31 per cent, contained total arsenie, expressed as m
arsenic, in the proportion of not less than 26 per cent, equivalent ton
cent of arsenic oxide, iand contained arsenic in water-soluble forms, exs
as metallic arsenic, in the proportion of not more than % of 1 per cent, w
the strength and purity of the said article fell below the professed at
and quality under which it was sold in that it contained less than 69
of calcium arsenate, more than' 31 per cent of inert ingredients, leas fl






Ea&MO~tr&a2


NOTIOOUS OF


J~QMENT


C
*1
; .E *.. f. *





S .. **
Hr"" iI
... .. .. S I
N j I1,
.. .. ..
...... .. ...............


'as.

!fl a


U


I'dr


.tr,4lcimn. .arsenate only, but .did'. contain, as a$ve ingredients,
ae\ *i:nd .Jlead arsenate. Adulteration wasalleged-,with respect to
o0 packages of the product for the further reason tott a substance,
Sarsenate, had been substituted in part for the said. :article, that is
c iuar arsenate. .... ..
was alleged for the reason. that the above-quoted statements,
labels, were false and misleading, and, by reason of the said
the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the pur-
I H .J^P "_"
that they represented that the said article consisted of arsenate
i ad other calcium compounds, contained, as as active ingredient,
Sarsenate only and in the proportion of not less than 69 per cent,
.Iinert ingredients in the proportion of not more than 31 per cent,
4otal arsenic, expressed as metallic arsenic, in the proportion of not
percent, and equivalent to arsenic oxide in the proportion of not
40 per cent, and contained arsenic in water-soluble forms, expressed
li e arsenic, in the proportion of not more than % of 1 per cent,
the said article contained less than 69 per cent of calcium arsenate,
e than 31 per cent of inert ingredients, contained total arsenic,
I as metallic arsenic, in a proportion less than 26 per cent, and
t to less than 40 per cent of arsenic oxide, and contained arsenic in
uble form, expressed as metallic arsenic, in a porportion greater
of 1 percent, and the article contained in the said two packages


4 consist of.
'. calcium
n, d did no
ai ntain, a


arsenate of calcium and other calcium
arsenate, other calcium compounds,
it contain, as an active ingredient, trica
,s active ingredients, calcium arsenate


in.ed less than 69 per cent of a
ding .was alleged with respect
D pa agess for the further reason tha
nceesior ingredients, to wit, substances
senate, and the name and percentage


compounds, but did
lead arsenate, and
lcium arsenate only,
and lead arsenate,


active ingredients.
to the article contained in the said
Lt it consisted partially of inert sub-
other than calcium arsenate and lead
Amount of each and every one of


.jfe. said inert substances so present therein were not stated plainly
4i ctly on the label affixed to each of the said two packages, nor,
*lereof, were the name and percentage amount of each and every s
1tjingredient of the article having insecticidal properties and the total
SJ S Of .the inert substances so present in the said article..stated pla
crn~eetly on the said labels.
On September 26, 1927, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the
t io5e..nd the court imposed a fine of $100.


N


and cor-
in lieu
ubstance-
percent-
inly and


informa-


W. M. JARDINE, Seoretary of Agriculture.


... ., a1124 ,M.lterstion, and miubrandinl
' ? D.r 5. P. UI. S, v. Crystal Soap
., .. i 0ne, 1lOO. (T. & F. No. 1461.
1 ,On 1kabout November 16, 1927, the
:. OrS^f Pennsylvania, acting upon
." Wd. lin the District Court of the
N ,t k ainst the Crystal Soap and
I *"Pkdelphia, iPa;, alleging shil
b feiat act of 1910, on or ab
..i.. A- into the State of Massa
,. 6l6pl dU. P. which wa
,dtide MUk S meahing of said act.
.. .' I-t waelmgi !j~! thie'information t


r of Crystal cresol compound solution
and Chemical Co., Inc. Plea of untity.
Dom. No. 22209.)


United State
Sa report by
United States
Chemical Co.
pment by said
out March 24
chusetts of a
s an adultery

hat the article


s attorney for the Eastern
the Secretary of Agricul-
s for said district an infor-
, Inc., a corporation, trad-
i company, in violation of
1927, from the State of
quantity of Crystal cresol
ted and misbranded fungi-


le


was adulterated in


that


!i x




U.. I.
.H-n


20


SE ACT


tar neutral oils had been substituted in part for cresol,' dtlr oil '~
substituted for linseed il, aind excess Water bad been added 2to th.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to w
-Compound Solution U. S. P.," borne on the label, was false and
and, by reason of the said statement, the article wals labeled and
.so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that it represeDted
article was Liquor Cresolis Compositus, U. S. P., whereas, it was nb
Cresolis Compositus, Tu.B. P., 5ut did consist of cresols and othet
soap other than linseed oil soap, coal-tar neutral oils, and water i
-contain more water and less soap and cresols than that required by I
pharmacopoeia for Liquor Cresolis Compositus. j
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the akkcle
partially of an inert substance, to wit, water, that is to say, a substai
Does not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi, and the name a
-centage amount of the said inert substance contained in the article W
stated plainly and correctly, or at all, on the label affixed to the cr
training the said can, or to the can containing the said article, nor,
thereof, were the'names and percentage amounts of each and eve


stance or ingredient of
total percentage of the
correctly, or at all, on
or to the can containing
On January 11, 1928
behalf of the defendant


the said article having fungicidal properties, aM
inert substances so present therein stated plainrl
the labels affixed to the crate containing the said
the said article. '
, a plea of guilty to the information was entertV
company, and the court imposed a fine of $100 .
W. M. JAMxNr, Secretary of Agr o


Misbranding of 2 In 1 lice and mite remover.
2 in 1 Lice and "Mite Remover. Default dec
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 1438.


On June 13, 1927,
of Tennessee, acting
the District Court of
and condemnation of
.alleged in the libel
18, 1926, by the 2 in


the United States attorney for
upon-a report by the Secretary
the United States for said district
551 bottles of 2 in 1 lice and


that the
1 Poultry


article had
Supply Co.,


been st
Kansas


of Missouri into the the State of Tennessee, and that,
it remained unsold at Memphis, Tenn., and that it
ticide within the meaning of the insecticide act of 19


Misbranding
statements, to
*contents of T
is absolutely
stick-tite fleas


Sof the article
p wit, "'2 in 1
his Bottle is S
Guaranteed to
or blue-bugs,"


was alleged in the lib
' Rids and Prevents Li
efficient to make 200 4


d poultry of
2 in 1' Lice I


all
and


U. S. v. 551 BlR t
ree of condenid
S. No. 175.) ri
the Western m
of Agriculture, I
a libel praying h
mite remover.
-^ A-.'c


tipped, on or aboutUBfl.:
City, Mo., from thie :tei:.
having been so'transpo.MiI.
Swas a misbranded U -..
1 0 ..
el for the reason tha. .i
ce and Mite Remover he
Gallons. This prepa :ua$ I|


parasites such as lice,
Mite Itemover is harmled


non-poi
and bl
corked,
gallon
water.
-of this
feed,"


sonous. It will not taint the flesh or the eggs. It is a wonderful
ood-purifier for young and old fowls. Directions: Keep bottle 1
Mix ten (10) drops of '2 in 1' Lice and Mite Remover with
of drinking water. If possible, do not use metal containers fi
If the poultry have access to water in creeks or streams, mix 15
product in a cupful of water, then add this solution to every gal
borne on the labels affixed to the bottles containing the said a


were false and misleading,
was labeled and branded sc
they represented that the


I
1:i
a


and, by reason of the said statements, the
Sas to deceive and mislead the purchaser, i
said article, when used as directed, would


XHi


1125.


I
*I




I


""1
.4. .
1~'


A,.
h
H..
f*~IIHI~
.II=I'~
II
H I.
!I~ '~'.
H::
*IH~I
A.
H~.
1~
H.
H
H
I.
I.
Ph
Ii A


.INDEX TO


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT 1101-1125


M.-e-- men's ar ate of calcium:
Ale:,', B ni, W. A........
.: ...Allen's Bo eaiux mixture:
-.. .. ,. .:I~ ", WA .........
A1 s..; -iept: ash for birds:
.... e Products Co.
: -: r.:d":' ,..:
S,, *eim, John, and Co:
...e.a.. :cium :
S,,:. .. ..e White Lead and
... .........Wp rk a------ ---
.11. Aeu. W A
ta astdsep.ice wash :
... .. ...Met.r Products Co-
_or ux. mixture:
....Alen, W. A--------
.........".': ".] W .llt a n Co.. ...
':; '" '-tnate :
.." *'.:^'. -.e Luas, John, and Cou
l:... BU destroyer:
S* Sliores-Mueller Co.-
m arsenate:
,'il" Acme White Lead and
*. ii. Vo rks
:I,;.; Allen, W. A-------
... .0-cresol disinfectant
:.W -. .;il Mveyer Bros. Drug Co
;> ball:


....i
-----





Color





---- -

- --


Color


- --- -


:...:.':::': Rose Chemical Products Co_
Ici atd lime:
H. HTomson, P. C., and Co ....
esoJ compound:
Crys tal Soap and Chemical
.-Co ----------------- --
stal ~esol compound:
S.tC crystal Soap and Chemical
:> .&::: G o .S^ -
: Pdnide, Bodtum:
%,. qaul,, P. M., and Co_-
'C::iafec t, Carbo-eresol:


Meyer Bros. D
powder:
WiOres-Mueller
p1 ,
*1 STirgess, W.
I en dtfc;
.Walut Gro
A- -
... !: c o- *f ,
:'s -: Lice table
..sait, E. C


rger I
,oyer :
oree-l


a-


rug o..
Co--

-----

wers

ets:
- -


Products Co.

lueller Co.


--- -

-- -- -


Spray


1123

1117

1113

1104

1110
1123
1113

1117

1104

1120


1110
1123

1118

1114

1103


1124


1124

1105

1118

1120

1121


1109

1102


------


SLee's lice killer:
Lee, G. H.,
Lice killer:
Lee, G. H.,
Lice tablets:
Arehart. E


Lice and mite killer:


Lice and


Co- -_ 1106, 1112.

Co-- 1106, 1112,


I. C-


McDaniel, F. L------
mite remover:
2 in 1 Poultry Supply Co.
1119. 11


Mite killer :
McDaniel, F. L--------
Mite remover:
2 in 1 Poultry Supply Co_
1119. 11


Nico-Sulphur-Dust:
Walnut
Mfg. C
Nico-Sulphur-bust :
Walnut
Mfg. C<
Parasite remover :
.Star Che
Red Seal chlorinate
Tomson, 1
Reliance lice and r


Growers
J---------

Growers
o--------

mical Co.
d lime:
P. C., and
ite killer


McDaniel, F. L------..
Rid-O-Lice tablets:
Arehart, E. C-----
Saniflor:


Sentry

Shores

Silbling

Sodium

Star pa

Sulphur


U


Spray


Spray


Renaud et Cie-----
telephone deodorizer:
Sentry Products Co


powder:
Shorea-Muelle
cedar ball-
Rose Chemical
cyanide :
Caul, P. M.,.
rasite remover
Star Chemica
dust:


r Co_ -

l Products Co_

and Co.....

I Co__- --


Walnut Growers Spray
Mfg. Co_
Telephone deodorizer:
Sentry Products Co___-
Tomson's chlorinated lime:
Tomson, P. C., and Co.....
2 in 1 lice and mite remover:
2 in 1 Poultry Supply Co..--
1110, 112


1l1e"

1116.

1102

1115-

1107,
1125

1115-.


1107.
. 1125


1109


1109

1108

1103

1115

1102

1101

1111


1120-


1108.


1100

1111

1103

1107.
2. 1125.


.


:
















,t. .11

.n~ ":.*


II ::~H H:
'I ".. ~
IaN::.
I


.
, -..J5 ).


Mn.
.
IL




'I


- 4.: nj.


1- f .


..i. ...
-. -a *g ^^-


4'
H
2







:: A:
.1!
ir.


t


.1
--H .---
.7.
H
4
4>.'
I,



H
I.
H: jlj Hal






























* it.









I..
., i.*
.1, *


mm






























I.
KWH
* :~ rHH1
UK! .:W'.
!# !.K
A
%

lint: ~:~*

hi.

H"'"
..





.1


4


.':..


* *.


. "* ..


\
..HA

t.ij$::il
51k:
.*1
Jr
Id


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA










262 8157 06


Lit


.,~:r~:::rK K
H' PH .h~
tIre. .14...!!,~
.1.. HK~ H
H~ .1.
iH *
V
*~~*H~* IH

4K


:!:Kr
I ~i. ~
.4. --
H~~k
H *:jj.yH ~:: H
.1
LtSH ..~ IU.
I:. H ~::.E
., .
hi ..~.
1.4 *:..*A .. .. [I

1 H.:

H.~H.



H





-
I
S." .1
p






.b. a
.1, ..
Ml
*~h A


H
*. ii::::" :.
* i ::,*, ,


.


I,


*.
I. ~q
**"~:~.*


wam.
h'


.4


V


:tpjl...

-'I

H-
Pr
.r..
*H.
I
I4
*










':
It ..~ H:!


:, ',"

.: :", :,
." T


*4~~ ~


1.4

*'!~ k..
~ *,~*; HI
1~
*H..H!~!.



HA
H
..rH :.~ .H.
Kb.. I
-.1.
P*H..

P K
.4
P.
4.

a.


V


.4w::.
P.


-~ 'Ii

'.1
1~.V
q.kjr.-H..





:17%
H


'A


* .. > 1


!:
H
u