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:
AA00008549:00003

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text









I.
rM~i


* *.A-


* II


t" *. ic
. .. ,1 .' \ I :"^ :. :
.A iyc
sf:T.. At' l~ f-^ .- *L.i

i~lj^UyN


.1>


PER.
*i.u? "


STHE


INSECTICIDE ACT
i's *


U's
~4t /1~


~J'


I.
H t
1.1


saon 4 of the. Insecticide act]


.i-ies


r.y 'C. *ptuw, Wamhing.pn, D. C., A*gwut 8, 1929]

%IS Nlv *rR1 FlPlea of suil
Ed tfaS. B~m.N/M5 19S41, 20%^!^9 2657 .)
; S... i T


1~SA*eT
upon a r
flkJA


* I,... :.
-. '*1 I
-: -.:hkLlJ


States
by the
ltes .ft


attorney for the Northern District of
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
Mit" dMstrltt an Information against
Allgng shipmnent by said defendant,
), k, various consignments, i part on
About Matlh 23. 1925. ftom the State


Lt : Oregon, COp mecticut, and Maryland, respm.
ri, wbich was a misbranded insecticide and fungi-

r ti.& that the article was misbranded in that it
tl tflces, to wit, aubstanceS other than sodium
Sat, that is to say, substances that do not
! E teo fats or fungi, and the name azdl percent-
spe; e the inert substances So present in the
.l. ctly on the label affixed to .ech of the
ile,.ni a. lieu thereof, were the name and per-
d.y .si asnce or ingredient of the article having
--- .and the total peer(utage of the inert stb-
.platny and correctly on the said label.
etat wtered a plea, of guilty to the informal
M.;.*: *.. of'. .* M* w fg orl of
6Ihl O$ r300.
; =i(L r B~MARIN ietrttf .Seret erg of AgnoiwitsrG.


"E .. .,,. : ... ..
,' a of Phneix Snow WbAite chlorinatpd
.. .. s Co. (Inc.). Plea of nolo contendere.
S... .3, om. No. 21002.)
H .. I.' attorneyey for the Northern District
ftary '. Agriculture, filed in the
T:siH rin informationn apa nust the
.. i,, i taoa, al ging shtpmidnt by said
.eH auq$% 1910, n or about August 2, 17,
S0btjqB sI anouth srolnan of a *tiantity of
atoa
!c *" -' ii hs a jA l a isn e
\H n .:, nn t f lirf f' ii ,__a *._ -*H r1- '*'J. .i .* *


C
'I..


ty.


4


E
















partauy or inert suDttances or Igxahents, to wit, subt oamtho i
able chlorine, that is to aMy, fsubstt h that do not t des,
mitigate fungi, and the name. and' wcetage amount emaeh of es
substances so present in the article were not stated plaly and
label affixed to each of the cans containing theaid article, nor, Uli
were the name and percentage amount of each and every usatance o t
of the article having fungicidal ropertes and the total etage 4
substances so present therei.tatted plainly and correctly on the tail
On October 2, 19% a pleof nolbecontende to the informAl
on behalf of the defendant. 4pay, and the court imposed a fine -
.,- o-0. F. Mnvs, Aoting SB re of
*. J.
E '.". "' '. i .. > : i'r
1158. Mimbransliag of ,Ueeq.:estleetIle. I. S. ., 86 Gallon Ue.pi.
Waco laseetlcied. p taut decree of condemTnatOfda S
detmufetion. (I. & F.rNo. 148t. oma. No. 25002. -16.- .-o
On July 14;, 1928, tlib' U iited' States attorney fot the Wk~Iaern .
Virginia, acting .upon a report by the Secretary of .Agicultt e,
District Court of the United: States for said district a libel prayin
condemnation of 86 gallon bottles, 386 ltalf-gallon bottle, 60 quart b)tl
pint bottles of UTcco insecticide. It was alleged th the libel that he
been shipped, ol or about Decembet 24, 1927, by the Union Co....
tion, Ooudersport, Pa., from the State of Pennsylvania. into the
ginia, and that having been so transported it remained unsold b]
unbroken packages at Fairfax, Va., and that it was a misbranded in
within the meaning of the insecticide act of' 1910.
It was alleged in the libel that the article wts misbrandedl :r thlfItt
Agents, to wit, "Used as an emulsion applied to the surface of the sod 1
soil for the control of the Corn Borer,' "Ucco Itsectiieq
control of* the corn borer *. bugs, beetles" "U w
cide throws off a poisonous gas toxin for insects, bugs, and pests whICl
by the pore route," borne on the label affixed to the bottles contaJinlig
article, were false and misleading, and by reason of thee said itatl
article was labeled and branded so'as to deceive and mislead the purMe
that they represented that the said article, when used as directed,.
an effective remedy against the corn borer, wo : be an an
against the corn borer, all bugs, ana. all .beetles, and. would be. aa~.
remedy against all insects, all bugs, and all pests which, breathe -b *
route, whereas the said article, when used as directed would not l
for the said purposes. Misbranding was alleged fot the farther re|
the article consisted partially of an inert substance or ingredi at, tow
that is to say, a substance that does not prevent, detroY, lapel, ort
insects, and the name and percentage amount of said inert .substan
gredient so -present in the article were n...ot state plainly and cor
the label axed to the bottles containing the. said article, nor, In lie
-- a1^ am a a a &n- ah 't a -- aSf '.L'L3












CUWMapIt I P.a3 frt the State of Psheylwnia into the
. aul that hatipgl:ben so transported ib.emainat unsoa.
? .. k agesat MC., and that 1ttas a mhsbranded i
l of the ~nteticlde act of 19109.. .
'.e. articeo was,alleged in the libel for thp reason th
"Used as an emulsion applied to the surface of th


he control. ot the Corn.. Boar
* the corn bliorer bu
aa. poisonous gas toxin for insects,
l. outet" llhrne on the label affixed to
ere false asd misleading, and by reason
beled and branded so as to deceive and


State
in the
nsecti-


at the
10 sod,


er," Ueco Insecticide
gs, beetles," "Ucco In-
bugs, and pests which
the bottles containing
of the said statements
mislead the purchaser,


ELSE

1*
a .,S


... ..


a -


ented that the article,


H.tgainst
and
wb hen used
Small bugs,
*ta breathe
ohb that the


.the co
iall pest
as dire
and el
by the
article


when


rn borer, all bugs,
s which breathe by
acted, would not be
Ll beetles, and again
pore route. Misbi
consisted partially


used as directed,


an
th
an
nist
ran
of


would be an


d all beetles, and against
a pore route, whereas the
effective remedy against
all insects, all bugs, and
ding was alleged for the
an inert substance or in-


A. !Iti,: .water, that ie to say, a substance that does not prevent, destroy,
S t:^atb insects, aid the name and percentage amount of said inert
ta S.preent int..the article, were not stated plainly and correctly on the
f..to.e S .f the bottles containing the said article, nor, in lieu thereof,
t....n .a"sdm percentage amount of each and every substance or ingredient
eu... blhaftng .inseotifidal properties and the total percentage of inert
aides .so present in the article stated plainly and correctly on the label.
(W.ber'20,. 1928, no. daimant having appeared for the property, judgment
t0nz:anatior.and forfeitute was entered, and it was ordered by the court
.. e-lw l .i.bedestroze..1Jw the United States marshal.


O. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


,.A_ fi.,J .,.,., : I .
t. raltin -ntf ene*I3ol disinfectant. U. 5. v. Gibraltar Chemical
..:" :oration, Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. No. 1489. Dom. No.
S ,, ,'t l m ^ -'.) -.: P .
iwem .18, 128i the United. States attorney for the Southern District
.B. tbV4 ating upon -port by the Secretary of Agriculture, fled in the
. Smart sof the. UnitMd States for said district an information against
rir alr lnemical Co rporation, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by
F:i y, -in violktiena of the insecticide acd of 1910, on or about July 9,
if .e SBtats t New York into the State of Massachusetts, of a quantity
a;isfbltctant, which was a misbranded fungicide within the meaning
.i ,i ... ;.!.!::: ,., ., I.I .
S... te.in thAeanformation that the article was misbranded min that
I ,wito t "-Lnertt Mavter Water 15%," borne on the label affixed to
athe Bidd article,b.was false and hMisleading, and by reason of
I.saiit the faticle was labeled and branded so as to deceive and
s"ad t-ehas lh .that it represented that the article contained as inert
te"i. ,. thtIs I' j. ay, a substance that does not prevent, destroy,
l,a tite fungi bacteriaia), whereas the said article did not contain
te,> sf:l..inefinredtient. but did contain as inert ingredients water
. .fiiin .i' ." WmfrhrwnMinvr wnc msllM Wp. for the further reason that the


I
-4


*E..


-=










sentage amoett of gefl amad
fungicidal properti Wand th
therein stated rtaivly and o
O1. Dfonmimr a U IQOB ia im


rWW. gaIm-w;^ JfC^^i
Wtmtlpetcfiltag SftefEM
ttecty ~in the Said labt&1Ufc:
. rtP dfltw atfli dW^ue In lbria'iit~
*ansld


. 1 ..'t .
: *,< ,: *.
si laiiiMnf


* 5 S
of the defendant company, thetourt Sioeii fst2. S: r *
"....'i ...I.... Mt r, Ad n wftfl "c..i
1156. Miabramnditg f. Ptnastm dlminteetants U6 S. t.nlSa -iIlyt l.
Co. Plea of guilty. rine, 9109. (I. & P. Na 101 Dom. li
On April 6,1928, the United States attorney twr the. In Distatett
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricultm, Sled in te
Court of the United States for said .Ssixiet an informal s againta
Liptol Chemical Co., a corporation, Long Island City, M. Y.., alleging
by said company, in violation of the insecticide act of 110, an or about
1027, from the State of New York into the State of New.Terewy, of a qpa
Pinatru disinfectant, which was ai misbranded .fungigde witia the ..e.
said act. + -: t,
It was alleged in the information that the article was. misbrade in.
consisted partially of inert substances or ingredients, to wit, water ad a
oil, that is to say, substances that do not prevent, destroy, er-,r
fungi (bacteria), and the name and percentage amount of each.at o the ,
substances so present in the article were not stated plainly and correctly
label, affixed to each of the drums containing the Said article, owrjv
thereof, were the name and percentage amount of each substance ot it
of the article having fungicidal properties and the total percentage .
substances or ingredients so present in the said article stated plaiN
rectly on the said label. .
On October 23, 1928, a plea of guilty to the information was entered o.|
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100. : "i
0. F. MAwVIN, Acting Secretary of AM


Mimbranding of p-g-I-clde and BDug--de red mite liquid. th
John N. Wittpenn. Plea of saulIty. Fine, 5. (I..&.F.. o
No. 23060,) .. ..


On May 31, 1928, the United States
acting upon a report by the Secretary
of the United States for said district a
trading as the Rockland Chemical (o.,
defendant, in violation of the insecticide
from the State of New Jersey into t


attorney for the District of teW J
of Agriculture, filet In the DSi
n information against John N.Wi
Newark, N. J., alleging hipset
le act of 1910, In e" axbomt AplI iUl
he State of New York, of quaiin


Bug-i-cide, "The Gteat Insect Destroyer," and Bugi-eide it.d .ait
which were misbranded insecticides within the meaning oftaid Met .-
It was alleged in the information that the articles were misbrande
the statements, to wit, "Bug-i-cide, The Great Insect Dedtryete, f.lm 2
Bed Bugs, Roaches, Water Bugs, Moths, Ant, Mosquitoe, .Ftua -4
Carpet Bugs, Poultry Lice, Mites, Nite, and absolutely dtm'ee the 1a:
eggs of such insect life," Bug-i-cide IbRed Mite ILiquid. Kill rIniatati;
Mites, Poultry Lice, Bed Bugs, Boaches, Water Bugs, Moths, ats, Mos
Fleas, Spiders, Carpet Bugs, Nits, and absolutely destroys thJ*Larvae
of such insect life," with regard to the respective products. and the stat
to wit, "Directions. Spray thoroughly in all crack or erevices or w
insects are likely to be found. A second application witin t week :


1157.


H





. **. : *
F H
" I .. ,


Itw J
Bt the.


* H H.

Sx H" "' :.::''aj~
* Sr HJ*.
. '......
I IH. :!'4
I..
H ....
.... x: ..

H
I'-. 'IH
4
I..l:.: k~l


*~H H.
~1L~~
.1~~~
A:
in.
'I.
.........
He
H H
*L..

~('N 'I
Hii~ihi I.
I
II H' 4'
HIH
Hfl~'Hij***i~
- .~ HEIr
H-


.


1TOTIOBIS OF


DUDGMEN
**


ciilwer. ant cdreetly stated on the ojtiide thea
*i.tatd te tathn ae quart of the artile. ,
k.4Z28G the defendant entered a plea of guilty to
ht1 Smosed a fint of $5. :
. H : H A A&t
.^-r^**'.,**ta p!. ( MAHYIN, Acitingl Uvotttanj
.. a,


eof, in that each

the information,

of Agrfkudture.


. and mitabuwaning of Cresol Cospound U. S. P. (Liquor
iCfp). :J. >. .e Clifton Claemtq m Co. Plea of guilty.
. (I. A W No.... 43. Dour. No. 23801',.
,-the United States attorney for the Southern District of New


,. a report by the Secretary
te States for said district
1 orporation..,Newv York, N.
of theoinmpcticide act of
f New Yor% into the Stat
iU. S. P. ( liquor Cresolis
.n gcide within the meaniT
eg in the information that t
.t;o wit, "Cresol Compcmnd
it-Cre~so ls 50%," borne on
.id article, represented that i
s'ljppr cresolis. compasitus, U.
4 pot less thao..o per cent, whe
Et4fpw. the. professed standard an
.W t^ li quor cresolip composi
1'a. eresols, an. contained m
tfldshitUIT. U. S. P., and contain


'of Agriculture, filed in the District
an information, against the Clifton
Y., alleging shipment by said cornm-
1910, on or about August 16, 1 97,
e of New Jersey, of a quantity of
Comp.), which was an adulterated


ng of said a
he article
U. S. P. (
the label a
ts standard
S. P., and
reas the str
d quality u
tus, U. S.
ore water a


Let.
was


Liquor
affixed
and
contain
ength
Hinder
P., in


adulterated in


ir Cresolis Comp.)
Sto the drum con-
quality were such
ned cresols in the
and purity of the
which it was sold,
that it contained


nd less soap than liquor


d less than 50 per


ij 4l4ege4d for the further reason that the stall
QS~d. U. .. P. (Liquor Cresolis Comp,)," borne on
Pt the a.rttie was liquor cresolis compositus, U.
4i creolis com positus, U. S. P., in that water am
"4 been substituted in part for the said article,
'res&ribed for liquor eresolis compositus by the
States.a


cent of eresols.
tement, to wit,
the said label.,
S. P., whereas
d phenols other
that is to say,
Pharmacopoeia


rAigng "was *aegad for the reason that the statements, "Cresol Com-
.U S. P. (liquor O.resolis Comp.)," "Active Ingredients-cresols 50%,"
0t' .te label, were false and misleading, and by reason of the said state-
te ..rti.e ewas labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the
..FM tt.4 ..th.ey .,reireseated that the said article was liquor cresoUis
esius..as prescribed in the Pharmacopoeia of the Unite States, and con-
)Cge lp.& the proportion of not less than 50 per cent, and that cresol
*.-.y ativsr ingredient uf the said article, whereas the article was not
.li.s eompositus. as prescribed by the said pharmacopoeia, in that it
Sdheabew.other than cresols and contained more water and less soap
:r eolis.compositus as prescribed in the said pharmacopoeia, it con-
gi|s it a proportion less than 50 per cent, and contained as active
fIn' ;.zesol- a*3p. other phenols and soap. Misbranding was alleged 'for
.I"Iup"rton that the article consisted partially of inert substances or
Il| te: .wit, water and glycerin, that is to say, substances that do not
y oy, repel. or mitigate fungi (bacteria), and the name and per-
Q...mit of eaeh :o the said inert substances were not stated plainly and
^^: the label affixed to the said drum, nor, in lieu thereof, were the
I per.eatage amount of each substance or ingredient of the artefe
.. icidal properties and the total percentage of the inert substances or

















that the article was nonpoisonous, .th.when used as .iit w;.5
nate ants under all conditions, and .ontained. cocoa sh only ast w.
redient, that is t.'say, a substance that does not pn..t estr r
mitigate insects, and contained' cocoa shells in thy pr Ae of''
whereas the article was poisonous, in that it ednsisted rinile!ytl
ous substance, to wit, sodinu.fliuoide,; when used as drtet *6
minate ants under all conditions, and the said article in certAib of .t
ages did not contain 'cocoa shells only as an inert ingredi4ti'-. ce
inert ingredients other than tocoa shells, and contained ,iert .A,
proportion much less than 20 'per cent, and the article, .in' ertain' itub
contained no cocos shells, but did contain inert ingredients O thgr
shells. Misbranding was alleged for the .further reason "thatl art
sisted partially of inert ingredients, to wit, substances other th4i ue
fluoride in certain of the packages, and substances other than l6.i
and powdered pytefth'tium flower heads in' certain' of th .'pacea .
say, substances that do tot prevent, destroy, repel, ot"mitigate fittse
name and percentage aminount' of each of the said nett siibstaice .
in the article were not stated plainly and correctly on the' latbels.T '*i
packages containing the said article, .nO', in lieu thereof, were th .h
the percentage amount of each substance or ingredient of the t'atd
insecticidal properties, and the total percentage of' the inert sbst
present therein stated plainly and correctly on the said labels. >
On March 17, 1928, a plea of guilty to the information was entjtq" 9
of the defendant company, and the cotiUrt imposed a fin'e of $X ,:. ""
C F. MAtvIx,. Acting,.e tia4 .. 4u


~1tw


,
4.
.. .. ~ ~ *" *" .: .;
1160. AdulteratIon o0 carbolic alcid liquefed phenol. U. *. *r.
SDums & Preism Assoelation. Plet of gfallty. Finelu 60e $
(I. & F.. No. 1416..., Dom. No. 21010.) I :. -:
On December 2, 1026,., the United States attorney for. the Norterna E
of Iowa, acting upon a report by the Secretary ot AgricUtur fIled
District Court of the United States for.said district an information a
the American Drug & Pres. Association, a corporation, traditg.latt D
Iowa, alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the nmaetJide
1910,. on or about March 19, 1925, from the State of' Iowa into 'the t~
Washington, of a quantity of carbolic atid liquefied .phenol, which'
adulterated insecticide and fungicide within the meaning o.nala act,' .
It was alleged in the. information that. the article was edhlterated
it was intended for use on vegetation, to wit, plants, and whSnw o IseI
vegetation as directed by the label it would be injurious thereto.- .
* On December 5, 1927, a plea. of guilty .to the information .was ent
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed: a flue of $
costs. : : .
A ~. fl El~ .7 .Kf a -- J... rw~ -s-^- *.hjj- .. 0.te* _




:::~
4
tJ
I;'" ::.:~
I:
:F.
Lid wtAL


XOTIdSEB OP O&DOGMENT
I'm


SeCicut. and that hatig been transaported it remained
'iae ackages at N^w Haven, mi., .and that it was an
branded ippecticde within the meaning of the insecticide


e libel that .the article was adul rated in that the. state-
P..^ mc in Wqter. Soluble Form (as metallic) not more than
.^label afifxed. to the bags containing the article, and the
enic. in:wtatr soluble forms (as metallic) not more than
.-91T.bel afized. t the cartons containing the said bags, repre-
tdard a&nd quality of the article were such that it contained
.* lne (as metallic) in a proportion not greater than 0.7 per
stre(engthe aid purity of the said article fell below the pro-
et Quality under which it was sold in that it contained water
b metallic) in a proportion greater than 0.7 per cent. Adul-
for the further reason that the article was intended for
S0d, when used thereon as directed, would be injurious to
.^ii alleged for the reason that the above-quoted statements,
S,o,.the bags and cartons, were false and misleading, and by
*d.sateiients the article was labeled and branded so as to de-
id the purchaser, in that they represented that the said article
sbltible arsenic (as metallic) in the proportion of not more than
JIereas- the article contained water soluble arsenic (as metallic)
..refat& thini..0.7 per cent. Misbranding was alleged for the
S*Mt the statements, to wit, "Directions. The directions hereon
|J*Pg tutitously, and are believed to be reliable and of value, but
:. .i ..: teed. .For Spraying Fruits, such as Apples and Pears, for
~. .sCase-bearers, fruit and canker worms, codling moth,
S..,,to. 1% pounds to 50 gallons of spray. On stone fruits,
l ,.an Cherries, for such chewing insects as curculio and
." 4-to. 1 pound to 50 gallons of spray. When used on stone
ri ---.,-of.z"A, "made by slaking three to four pounds of stone
s. flons of spray material. On Grapes for such chewing insects
.uiz4,gn a p oto worm, use from 1 to 2 pounds to each 50 gallons
.-'i. t.. t- Vegetables, such as Potatoes, Tomatoes, Cabbage,
.g: s$ potato bug and worms, use from 2 to 3 pounds
S. .. .piry,.. For Dusting Hardy Plants, such as Potatoes,
LW,.e, etc., apply at the rate of 5 pounds per acre," borne
.l l4: ai4. bags, the statements, to wit, "Directions. These
sjip i 1us gratuitously and are believed to be reliable and of
S :. I Fijaranteed. For spraying fruit such as apples, pears,
-...,et.,, use from 1 to 1% pounds of dry Arsenate of Lead
.* 4wter or fungicidal spray. Unless used with lime sulphur,
.31W qsome fungicide containing lime, always add milk of lime,
#.or.threeI POunds of stone lime to every 50 gallons of spray
1ieon vegetables such as potatoes, tomatoes, squash, cucumbers,
.b' age, .cailiflowers.etc., use from 1 to 2 pounds of dry Arsenate
......,gall.nof water.,or Bordeaux spray. For dusting potatoes,
.: .. .ph, parr of dry Arsenate of Lead with 7 parts of hydrated
iprp41y detailed instructions from U. S. Department of Agricul-
perirmeiit.tations," borne on the label affixed to the said car-
ant.s, to. wit, "The use of this material being beyond our
ti0frol arid involving elements of risk to vegetation, we do not
Ar: expressed or implied, as to the effects of such use, whether


ThE.






















taineu
each
that
artiel
On
of th


a,
of
thu


in terms or weig, iff1oneCes or the article
the said packages were not edrreatly stated
e said contents were, in terms of weight,. le
Vy.


e.
May 1, 1929, a plea
e defendant company,


,, guilty to
and the court
,C.F. Ms


aAJtfl


Cr


the infornatiof : wt u" "
t Imposed a ne of Aos
LUTIN, Acting w ^.o. .h.g.4.


1168. Adulteration 4ns tUbrsaadign of Frunit ]UB.Tone. 7
KU l-Tone Co. PleF'6f guilty. Fie, ,S. (I., & li Np, I492'.
tae 6 ".' & t." i.
22048.) o ..*
On February 18, =ti9, the United States attorney'for the itH
Jersey, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agrisltine, iiei"i
trict Court of the unitedd States for said districtt an Ihformatloid.
Lucas Kil-Tone Co., a corporation, Vtneland, N. J., alleging Aiaelr
company, in violation of the insecticide acb of 1910, th oc tbontMa
from the State of New Jersey into the State of New Yo*t, of ...
Fruit Kil-Tone, which was an adulterated and misbranded .
fungicide within the meaning of said act.
It was alleged in the information that the'article Was dtdulterateq t
statements, to wit, Dry Lead Arsenate t3.0-760& %, IW rt Ij
more than 21.75%o, Total Arsemc, expressed a$ metallic, 14.00-1
on the label affixed to each of the baftgse containing the said &tfd'Bu
That its standard and quality were such that it contained lead.
proportion of not less than 73 pr cent, contained total sxIettt:A
metallic arsenic, in the proportion of not less than 14 per ee&i ad'
inert ingredients, namely, substances that do not prteet, 4t
mitigate insects or fungi, in the proportion of not more tha. 31
whereas the strength and purity of ,the said artiede fell ttw ti
standard and quality under which it was sal! in that It contaied I
per cent of lead arsenate, it contained less than 14 per cent fto-ti
expressed as metallic arsenic, and contained more than I.Th pzr cS
ingredients. "
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the above-quoted
borne on the label, were false and misleading, and by resoa.ft the '
~ .* : f,x ',, y," d:


ments the article was labeled and branded so as to deceel
purchaser, in that they represented that the article'contats
total arsenic, expressed as metallic arsenic, and inert ingri
centages declared on the label, whereas it contained less'i'
4-fa 1 a *raananh anrwnacatl no nwata1 Hn oan nia and uinawi'' 4ntai4


L@a 1ead'
lIed ts in
ad arsi
= If4iAmonaK


m


m




Si!~ LS..

ii.
I


* .:-*
m-


*. .. mm
*^' K
m m *


NOTICES -OF. SftG1MENT


t a.t quiie, whieh. are eoentrollable witi copper sprays, whereas
. when Used as directed would not be eSective against the more
p..leef tpple, pear, and quince, which alie contiollable with copper
tmadifg.'was alleged for the further reaaen that the artidle con-


-
Q~jme ~Md4


.,* a..


plot.iinert
k i mnd
patfreii d
.ir prey
e. ntage
eain -the
1. bags


substances or ingredients,
coppet (expressed as meta
ent, destroy, repel, or miti
amount if each and every
Article were not stated pl
containing the said article,


S 'e rentage amount
:'arei.ag insecticidal
t Ilw'. *rt substances or
aixp coitetly on the said
lag. k1 .1929, a plea of gui
dendant company, and th<


to' wit, substances o
lil copper), namely,
gate insects or fungi,
ore of the said inert
airly and correctly on


nor, in


Sof each and every subst
or fungicidal properties,
Ingredients so present in
label.
Ity to the information was
e court imposed a fine of $


C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of


their
sub-
and
sub-
the


lieu thereof, were
dance or ingredient
and the total per-
the article, stated

s entered on behalf
25.


Agriculture.


Adulteration and misbranding of No. 86 Calispray tomato dust. U. S.
v;. The California Sprayer Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, 9300. (I. & F.
:1482. Dom. No. 22718.)


Jutl.0, 1928, the
Eko a, acting upon
.~ tit* of the U
^3ortia Sprayer
;i. SJd company,
17,. 927, from the
tr of No. 86 Ca
nled" insecticide


United States a
a report by the


attorneyy f(
Secretary


r the Southern
of Agriculture,


District of
filed in the


United States for said district an information against
Co., a corporation, Los Angeles, Calif., alleging ship-
in violation of the insecticide act of 1910, on or about
State of California into the State of Washington, of a
lispray tomato dust, which was an adulterated and


I


1
"v.B' a4 alleged in the
} 'tatmnents, to wit,
S4ate 712.5% *
i dehydrated copper
tI. Arsenic (as meta
. the drum containing
.1 of the article v
S..in of not less than
poportion of not 1
bit copper sulphate


p.
5

I
I


fungicide


within


the meaning


of said


information that the article was adulterated
"Standard Lead Arsenate 45.0%, Dehydrated
*, Lead Arsenate, not less than 44.0%,


sulphate 4


Ilic
th
rere
44
ess
in


) no
e sa
sue
per
thai
the


ied .total arsenic, as metallic, i
1:,.eiained inert ingredients
p| fepel, or mitigate insects
. per cent, whereas the stren
.. .standard and quality i
B .n 44 per cent of lead an


pr sulphate,
p, less than
S51.5 Vpe? cen
Lsbrsding w
Ie.o 01 e labE
to -the :3rticl(
;hase i.. tha
rdrat tt .w1pp


it less 1
id arti
rh that
cent, c
1 12.5


, Inert Ingredients not more than


than 8.8%," borne on
cle, represented that
it contained lead ars
contained dehydrated (
per cent, contained c


proportion of not
n the proportion
, namely subst
or fungi, in the
gth and purity
under which it v


senate


less than


les
of
anc
pr
of
vas


;s than
not less
es that
portion
the arti
sold in


the label
the stand


senate
copper
opper


per
an 8.
) no
not
fell
at it


12.5 per cent of


in that
Copper
Copper
51.5%,
affixed
rd and


in the pro-
sulphate in
from dehy-


cent,
8 per
t pre
more
below
conts


con-
cent,
vent,
than
Sthe
iined


dehydrated


less than 4.5 per cent of copper from dehydrated copper sul-
8.8 per cent of total arsenic, as metallic, and contained more
,t of inert ingredients.
'as alleged for the reason that the above-quoted statements,
1el, were false and misleading, and by reason of the said state-


ei
t
ei


was labeled and branded so as to deceive and
they represented that the said article contained le
r sulphate, copper from dehydrated copper sul


mis
ad
pha


lead the
arsenate,
te, total


/
















was. a. misbrapde.|:ui^^ t^^oiiedl^ *-, "
. It was alle.in. e the .a the a.
the statement, to wit, a the labeH. d &- ..
containing the .aid article j.thwt tre. conp of:.A
were-, in terms of .measure, M*a a pipnt o., the. artl ~a *m
each of the said epns werg.aot correctly stated on thi.de" .
in that they contained less .t n ~ alf pint..ofthe:sai atatle,- .
On May 1, 1929, a plea of gnUlty t the informati'wns ent
of the defendant company, and the1s rt imposed a fne.f $..O auntA

0. *MAItN, Atotting $&ttvU of 4*
.. ..:". i. i .A


-A
.4


* .
* *: ..
Ai : M


qPI
.E'~ *
:1 Mi
H
1.


I:: a!

S
.4" ~. jh
~


--


* .1
:1
I


r... I


I mm


At,


I.
I..


*.


- 1:i *.LL*










.:a: **
A
i...
!.4:: ~1~!'
I: :. .

..'


jj;-jj;;j~
iHii~


A

-!


Sr
..Hr
Lr.::.
*~H~
rH.
h
rd.. H.
H
w1N'u
Hii~
t~j~
in.
H
I. .
r:.rr:r~,s E1*9.
hEr
:
..iYlti:
*1's,

Hi .r.
-Wi.
it
iEEE,.
H ~.ii
*H4j. EKE. C


H..iH..


TO NOTICES OF


N


e, lea:;
S...C chemical Engineering
-.,-. -..'.-- -

Ia Chemical Co---------
n L -.. a--- -- -
ftifqid:.
ohm.c.Co-.--
.eu-, S.N. N-- -..----..---
Stemate duet. Bee Tomato


. J. No.


1161


acid..liquefied phenol.
.


Sdisinfectant:
Co .- -- --- ..- .. -
brand dry powdered arae-
.lead:
Han Chemical Engineering

td1 lime:
BSuply CO.---------.--
pound U. 8. P.:
a Chemical Co-.._........
.ch powder:
W. aRntary Specialties Cor-

atIonI------
1--- --- -- -"---


.
.. Chemical Corporation.


tp-Lb&ol
I
it.
H .~.r ~r.
Vt.:. ..
.1
iii


1161

1152

1158


1155


Chemical Co.._-____


JUDGMENT 1151-1165


Fruit Kil-Tone:
Lucas Kil-Tone Co ----.....--.....
Insecticide, Ucco:
Union Control Corporation_ 115
Lao-A-Ant
Reynolds, J. T., & Sons .......---
Lime chlorinated:
Phenix Supply Co.............
Liquor Cresolis Comp.:
Clifton Chemical Co ..........-----
No. 86 Calispray tomato dust:
Calif. Sprayer Co ...........
Phenix Snow White chlorinated
lime:
Phenix Supply Co .-.............
Phenocol disinfectant:
Gibraltar Chemical Corpora-
tion ------------..........
Phenol, carbolic acid liquefied:
American Drug & Press Assoc.. -
Pinatru disinfectant:
Pino-Liptol Chemical Co--- .-
Qua-Sul:
Grego ry, A.R .... .-----....-.-.--...
Red mite liquid. See Bug-i-cide.
Roach powder:
U. S. Sanitary Specialties Cor-
poration ............------- ----
Tomato dust:
Calif. Sprayer Co ..... ....
TUceo insecticide:
Union Control Corporations 115:


N. J. No.


1163


3,1154


1159

1152


1152


1155

1160

1156


1162


3,


1154


.:. .: : Si


H -* j'.


a
t.I


H : ... .
K


I












UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA



Ii iiIiilll1l1illllimiininInniiu

3 1262 08582 46895


.


** -.** -* :: : -;; -
."B '^ : -i :::

: "i:." :: ; : "* .

" "
:*g* .*:
a^


I


*v ~.r
.1:.
*ijH~H
Hi?
.1.1111
N hILiiH
H
H~H
4w
*.NL~ii.
I:
* i**.


H H
HI
'i!..
ii ~jdjj;jq~. H.::

nil

H.:


-* *
-*


H ; m:


:!!hill ii: ..
i : ".
.*':"* "*


. : *:: :.
.HH *. *

d!

*:. :.* ..* :.

." .1 ",


NiL. A
S*:V .1 .i~.
I.


A. :
dW. .


P ii..
* 'H H .. U2'~Ifi '>1

S
1:: L. H. .4*11
A.

-
* ........L~ *.t
:1:1
*.~ H It!
...
..j~* ~ -I



C. A
11
-. ~4~t~..tHN H!
* U 1~
H*.
* .i. 'i PIt


.,.~irt~rv
-
t
I!..
I.


.~r :t


I ~


"4
S. iii'
.ikcj
rn.ii
I-



~
I
I


.* H. 4. ;pi.:
" ." .X .
.. *^ ... -y ..i .


--I.


.:: .. ... v. r


I.

ii


*i~v~~ r


*- f. .


t ,x :,


r :.~ ;
4' i.


.. .