on 4 of the insecticide act]
I ~ :;.*
rflr of Agri ture, Washington, D. C., March 14
tl1* dueo rl.er. IU. S. v. 271 Tablets,
ihe.. Wfith, decrees of condemnation,
a. (., &' F. N 1505, 1507. 8. Nos. 191, 192.)
*gust 16, 1929;, respectively, the United State
ct of Louisiana, acting upon reports by the
i the District Court of the United States fo
seiure and condemnation
re dns, La. It was alleged
..i..t it had been shipped b
'' b8about April 14, 1929,
f't qtfllinois into the State
W, vt.iined unsold at New
S .. ...= a
tiCie. and fungicide within t
T !i : f
in the libels
y the Stellar
and in part o0
et al., of
r said dis-
that it was
the meaning of the insecticide
ItRie 1Ibd that the article was misbranded in that certain
dn t dSibaji' ticlh borne on the cards attached to the said
4. Pteventativi Insecticide evaporates slowly
e I,:f ad'l"Dirtectadt," purported and represented that
asdirected 'was an effective moth preventative and
Ie, and that sait article was a disinfectant, whereas the
Directed wias n.ot an effective moth preventative, would
ile and was nIrt' a disinfectant.
B, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg-
ol and forfeiture were entered, and it was ordered by
* product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
AnRHUH M. HYDE, Secretary of
r of Perfeetion
4tern Mfg. Co.).
L OAA0O 2
Ptes of ~ilt y. Pie,
.. *f4 -S .*' = viU. U. azu. J.
'the United. ta s attorney for the District of I
lpoktkt the Secre ry' of Agriculture, filed in the
V. states for sa district an information agalp
Wp Kdrthwestern fg. Co., Omaha, Nebr., alleging
iI"-*fniajlht-binn nP.-hn 4MAminn.n+iIlAn end- nAP 101oin n.. nn. aoa
R k 64.^. :.ifA*^*, .
sylic Disinfectant Carbolic Acid Co-EflWcant 5 to 7 A Cool.-.ii-
Creosote Prepxtration ",ar.d '. Shoul,.,be .d... for all pl a w S.....
disinfectant. b. .. ne-aM .i-Diret.ibnta l...W.".pat
75 parts water," borne on the said label, were false and misleading, a ."E:
reason of the said statements the article was.Labeled so as to deceive asil I
mislead the purchaser in that they represented that the said article ednsbt".
of a coal-tar-creosote preparation and pOssessed a carbolic acid coefficielnt. ..,,,,:,..
not less than 5, and would be effective in all places where a disinfectant is: :. i"':,.1i
needed, and when used as directed would be an effective disinfectant; whe'atre"p"!
the said article did not consist of a coal-tar-creosote preparation but did...con"* !. i
sist of pine-wood oil, wood phenols, soap, and water, and it did. not possess a
carbolic acid coefficient of 5, but did possess a carbolic acid coefficient of less 1.
than 5, to wit, 1.1, it would not be effective in all places where a disi4fet. .. .:...
is needed, and when used as directed would not be an effective disiafecta..I
On July 16, 1929, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information, 'i
and the court imposed a fine of $5. ... .....
ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of AgrieultT&reh *i'j*I
I H **:.*..i:*
1168. Misbranding of Eureka lice killer. U. S. v, Edwin Ch Sl n u .
(Eureka Mfg. Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, 975. (I. & F. No. 149 -
Dom. No. 24314.) ..
On March 11, 1929, the United States attorney for the Eastern.. District i. "
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, mfied... i.,
District Court of the United States for said district an information' ,ag,. .
Edwin C. Singers, a member of a partnership trading as the ,uRr ;... :fgt
Co., East St. Louis, Mo., alleging shipment by said defendant in violation... ,.
., ..a... -..' '' '.
the insecticide act of 1910, on or about November 29, 1927, from the Stat.o. *f,:t!.
Illinois into the State of Missouri, of a quantity of Eureka lice killer, W.. :!
was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of said act. ... ."
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded ip. '..
the statements, to wit, "Lice Is the primary cause of 4,l :4w .,.H'.i
of poultry," Will rdi
Lice Killer The Grea
Killer will protect yc
a positive and certain
This preparation is gu
quart of coal oil and
the inside of the hen
the inside of the lay
little chicks moisten
when she hov
of the setting
makes the task e
Mites and insects
chickens are killed
nove lice from horses, hogs, sheep, cattle,'
Test Insect Destroyer on Earth *
)u from lice and mites Eureka
n remedy for mites, chigge
aranteed to do all tha
Mix one-fourth the
paint the perches of
house, being sure to
ing boxes before putt
feathers under side.
t is cl
tht brood mites will leave lit
t, apply the remedy to straw
fight to keep lice and mites
asy. Will positively
s, and will protect Poultry f
d by Lice and Mites than by
' and "E
rs, lice, bed bugs, gnts, (ti.
aimed for it on this wrap eq
its of this package ..to og.n
en house. Also paint all 6t
in all the cracks, and paint
Sthe straw. For. .eas... .t
ngs of the mother hen and
e chicks. To keep mites ..ot
bottom of nest It
way, but Eureka Lice .Killer
terminate all kinds ot Lie,:
m this great Plagne. MQ*
L11 other causes put together.
jE, ": .
,::" ii:, ",,E,,,
:* :: EE I ..::E
:EEE :: :::E ::EE E"
:" ::J : E : .::::"
...:i.rx ; i"..i;
.... ij::. : :: :ii .: :
. ". """'i:..E E".. i :....:::.Eil .::
': .E 86:" "
: Jl !'," .::.;
H,, : ,,,,,,
,, ,, ,,
WIMW 4W i'Mj W.IL wWs eA ifReu 19!.r
A I. JL..'W ::. e: allege ":'or. the fi
.plpfiy;:..of ine t substances or 'ing]
iiiSfpts^oy. repeal, or mitigi
S ,te ditecteg, and the name and.pe
|.@e|r i.gWF ient so present there
tfl ,label aftx. to the cartons Cont,
. *Q. *March: 8 .929, the defendant eni
:, oe.ur~ti.mEsad a fine of $75.
""*I" I. "i
::i":' :" ***f + ". .t A
:ir. ..S.... A4lt.eatift an. : miabra. .
..g;i'a-. ranualr potanslum cyni
IC -.uIty. rine, $35 and
: ..:..-.28", 2400 24085.)
." October'29, 1028, the United S
!. .t *o, aethg' Upon a report by the Se
...." rtt of 'thie United States for said
:. ~" i'1I & Co., a corporation, Cleveland
l..... ioIation 'of the insecticide act of
I. 22, March 23, March 25, No
H"' '........i..."ely, from the State of Ohio, in par
H:i~: :: ".....
.g. the State of New York, of quantil
i,': .. ctassium cyanide, which were
f: '.tbe uieaninflg of the said-act.
..:..Adulteration was alleged in the ii
!i. tAo~oium cyanide for the reason th
.... : 48%. Inert Ingredient, 4--2%," bo
,. Antaining the article, represented ti
.". : ;t.rti' of niot less than 96 per cent
it ob:TIP wrapped.
rther.. reaso.. that the
edients, that is to say,
ite.insecs when used in
.centage amount of each
in were not stated plain
inningg the said article.
,ered a plea of guilty to
ksB M. HYDE, Secretary of
IU. S. v. Philip
to. (I. & F. No.
the manner and
and, every inert
ly and correctly
A gricun ture.
M. Caul & Co.
1488. Dom. Nos.
states attorney for the Northern District of
cretary of Agriculture, filed in the District
district an information against Philip M.
, Ohio, alleging shipment by said company,
1910, in various consignments, on or about
vember 15, and December 5. 1927. respec-
t into the State of Missouri, and in part in-
ties of granular sodium cyanide and granu-
adulterated and misbranded insecticides
information with respect to the said granu-
at the statements, to wit, Sodium Cyanide,
rne on the label affixed tc
hat it contained sodium c:
and contained inert ingr<
Lnces that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigE
of not more than 4 per cent, whereas the strength
below the professed standard and quality under
contained sodium cyanide in a proportion less thai
inert ingredients in a proportion greater than 4.p
ling of the said granular sodium cyanide was alleg
H.."..Mt the statements, to wit, "Sodium Cyanide
S*'4 0;" buorte on.the. label, were false and misl
Ssaik statements the article was labeled and branu
ia4 the purchaser 'in that said statements put
aid article did contain sodium cyanide in the p
per cent and did contain inert ingredients in the
4 per cent, whereas the article contained less than
.d more.th.an 4 Der cent of inert ingredients.
H adulteration was alleged with respect to a port
qnde for the reason that the statement,. to wit,
.jbel, represented that the standard and quality
ded so as to
n 96 per
ed for t
or of the
roportion of not less than 96
proportion of not more than
96 per cent of sodium cyanide
ion of the granular potassium
"KCN 99.99+," borne on the
of the article were such 'that
." .Iontamined potassium cyanide in the proportion of not less than 99.99 per cent,
.I e. as.the strength and purity of the article fell below the professed standard
311nfljq3ality under which it was sold in that it contained less than 99.99 per cent
I**J:^. .. .i* VkC 0^l~-, nll^ nfl -B WJ An*
reason of the said statements thb trtclde was la beled and braid"d:-b Sa'
deceive and mislead the purchaser in that they repreentet -'tbhit4e ;..
consisted of potassium cyanide, and eeftained as active ingredients,: pot.m a.
cyanide in the proportion of 51 per cent,.and sodium cyanide in the. propor -. .
24- percent, and 'eontained.s an inativev ingredient, k<%odin h .4t. "it .
proportion of 25 per. centb *,whereas .the article.. :dl not .conh, t
cyanide, but did consist of a mixture of potassium .cyanide, soiun.;ea
sodium chloride, sodium carbonate, and other impurities, and containead
than 51 per cent of potassium cyanide, less than 24 per cent of .sodium.cyaB$i
and contained inert ingredients other than sodium chloride, to wit, bp 3ii
carbonate and other impurities. : ...:.i
.*...** J. i a .
Misbranding was alleged with respect to all lots of granular potassiunw t.
nide for the further reason that it consisted partially of inert substae-.t
namely, with respect to a portion of. the .article, substances other than ,pta*
sium cyanide, and with respect to. the remainder thereof, substances othe.nr,:U
potassium cyanide and sodium cyanide, that is to say, seuatairesltsht.pflt
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and the name and percentage au..wi3
of each and every one of the said inert substances or ingredients so present
the article were not stated plainly and correctly on the label affixed to the aico
containing the article, nor, in lieu thereof, were the names and perentsg
amounts of each and every substance or ingredient of the article haylg..
insecticidal properties and the total percentage of- the inert substances: .ii
ingredients so present in
On February '11, 1929,
behalf of the defendant
a plea of
and correctly onxtJ^
Ltion was entered 4 l
d a fine of $25
I' ': '.'
ARTHU. 1f. HYDE, Secretary of
1110. Adulteration and mlmbrandlng of Sanitar. U. S. v. Independent gv
Tar Co. Plea of nolo contender. Fine, 925. (I. & P1. No. 1491
Dom. No. 22752.) v
On December 27, 1928, the United States attorney for the District of Masu
chusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in t
District Court of the United States for said district an information .-
the Independent Coal Tar Co., a corporation, Boston, Mass., alleging hit.
by said company in violation of the insecticide act of 1910, on.or about July
192'flfrom the State of Massachusetts' into the State of Rhode Islan,. a.
quantity of Sanitar, which was an adultehated and misbranded inseeticide.e
fungicide within the meaning of said' act... ""*. .
SIt was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in th1t
statements, to wit, "Inert material 10% Water," borne on the label affllm(
the can containing the article, represented .that its standard and quality wi
such that it contained inert material, to wit. water. in tho nrnm.tinn ttn-n"
I...ial with Sandter. 0
,egad label, .were false an
' tileee .was labeled an
atthat they represented
in thf proportion of not
t of 2. and that the said a
leadig.-to disease, would a
ts, eats and bruises, and
ttlier insects, whereas the
iehtef'than 10 per cents it
i4lMt-much less than 2, a
le tablespoonftil to a pail of water,"
Misleading, and by reason of the said
branded so as to deceive and mislead
hat the article containedd inert material,
more than 10 per cent, that it possessed
ticle, when used as directed, would pre-
t as an effective cleansing agent, would
would act as an effective remedy against
said article contained water in a propor-
lid not possess a coefficient of 2, but did
id the said article when used as directed
.. pifvent the spreading of dise se, would not act as an effect
t,*Ibjuld not disinfect sores, uts, and bruises, and would
I tMedy against flies and all otherr insects.
EtlJttg was alleged for the f rather reason that the article
BBII an inert substance or ingredient, to wit, water, that
-. n that does not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects
E" .. .i^ihe and percentage amount, of the said inert substance
lis" w..e not- stated plainly and correctly on the label affixed t
tflittnithe said article, nor, in lieuthereof, were the names and
I S::utS df"aach and every substance #r ingredient of the article ha'
l~t...ri^ingicidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert
Arndets so present in the article stated plainly and correctly o
.... 14, 1929, a plea of nolo contender to the information w
.. ..MWof the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine o
n'"'. !r .'f ^^ 4 I" ''
,i., ,' ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agr
* .. h *"
.i:., 'Adnit eratlon and mimsbranding of Aeme chlorinated lime.
.'1:...^ 49 Cases of Aeme Chlorinated Lime. Default decree of c
-** .j-* -- *2-.-_- -- S J- J..6 .4T tL Em M^ *I At~fl & N
.. ... :oa.r xforeitnura, anu uestructio
I:.Ja0..p... bout May 18, 1929, the Unite<
4.tw Jrsey acting upon a report by t
to tfe District Court of the United States f
a id banctlnation of 49 cases of Acme
. the libel that the article had been slhi
SB., .Jabbitt (Inc.), Albany, N. Y., fr
...Statea..Nw Jersey, and that having bE
I tlh.original unbroken packages at No
C.: M ate4 and misbranded insecticide
: o."..tth~,tisecticide act of 1910.
... ,tj, ;as, .alleged .in the libel that the
tat ti >, borne on the label affixed to t
.. wit,.Avalable ObChlorine not less than 2
i::j,. M..Apritented that the article conta
:.... ft not less than 24 per cent, and
, i,........icer ..'th. :.. nQ ..nq ,prevent, destroy
.it..")Ntr.portion of not more than 76
! 'at.r ..of the article fell below .the pr
...Vuk.It tWa, sold, in that it contained
si: i ... .g taore.than 76 per cent of in'
-'%i:I ;..t!g was alleged for the reaso
i.: aIa A.4 not less than 24%, Inert Ii
not be an
is to say,
:o the can
n the said
, U. S. v.
I, OT \
n. ( F. o. 1499. 8. No. 187.)
d States attorney for the District of
he Secretary of
or said district a
chlorinated lime. It
)ped on or about Marc
om the State of New
en so transported it re
rth Bergen, N. J., and
.icle was adulterated in
cans containing the said
, Inert Ingredients not
d available chlorine in ti
ntained inert ingredients
epel, or mitigate insects
r cent, whereas the str<
ssed standard and qual
'ss than 24 per cent of
n that the statement
agredients not more
ts, to wit,
, 1929, by
k into the
it was an
* -- dr --
conoemnatLon 01 :grou I9J4.ApI: It 1e..p 1f 3 1 Wa "in .ge'
article had bee:.:shidpp.... an uguf u 14e
respectively, by the Ap i y .ration, Qh E ......... I. .IL.'.
Illinoi i t -thetate..o.t a;at .. .a..... .. *.
remained unsold in. the .origaaw bw en packages ,&t Phialadel H '
that it was .a misbranded insectici. thi. them.eamng. of the4. t
of 1910. .w.t.h... :i.... .n .,. ,: ...n. ... .. .
It was alleged in the. libel that th.. arile.was mfbranded i... .
ments, to wit, "Apex Moth a...a- Direction: e.eqtr off..girtight..I ||
front by drawing pmin point or :other sharp edge around inside. of ..
place cake where moth protection is.,desired... In .closets, .-han.. ...
garments, and keep:door closed as much aq possible. In large closlg
or if stronger fumes are .desired, remove front entirely. Clothes tli.
subjected to 'Apex' vapors can be worn immediately as 'Apex' le lij
Apex moth cake evaporates slowly in air.,.. giving. off a heavy ..
that kills and repels all stages of moth life. It purifies. Apex M
give continuous protection for several months, depending.on si gq
temperature, ventilation, etc. When entireIy evaporated. replace ::.t
a new Apex Moth cake-Particularly suited for clothes closets, loekom*4
trunks, drawers, etc. *. Apex Moth Cake rids your clothea-S
moths," borne on the. label affixed to each of the cakes of the said.a1i?.
"the statement, to wit, "Apex Moth Cake The Sure and Easy Way to...fl. ,
borne on the label affixed to the cartons containing the said cakes, -::..
and misleading, and by reason of the said statements the articlep.if
and branded so as to deceive and mislead.the purchaser i.- that thesrsq
that the article when used as directed would be an effective control Torrn7oI
large closets and rooms, would kill and repel all stages of motif4
purify, would be an effective control for moths in all clothes dl
lockers, and would be an effective control for moths under all con
whereas the said article when used as directed would not be effeptir 1
said purposes. ,, .s4) i,."2.
On December 10, 1929, no'claimant having appeared for the prtf|l.
meant of condemnat
court that the prod
ion and forfeiture was entered, and it was or1
uct be' destroyed by the United States marshal.
ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Ag
t .===L = n
1173. Adulteration and misbranding of Aeme beaan beetle duast,,.
Cans of Aeme Bean Beetle Dust. Defatllt decree ofe 'op0uI.W
forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 1508. 1. No. 193..) .! .
On or about August 22, 1929, the United States attorney (or -the ,
District of Ohio, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricnltm*
the District Court of the United States for said district a libel prayi
and condemnation of 35 cans of Acme bean beetle dust. It was as .
libel that the article had been shipped on or about June 26, 1929.I
White Lead & Color Works, Pittsburgh, Pa., and that having b
ported, it remained unsold in the original unbroken packages atJ ii
Ohio, and that it was an adulterated and misbranded insecti.i
meaning of the insecticide act of 1910. -
TI* rowm allaen-na1 in *han I11al 4-h1nd- 4-fha rnm.tn rn nAl..1dn..a.4-nA 1.i5k.
tL'2. ~..'* ~* ArK :.H..: H.
ti-i ., H.
*..HHH..Hi 4 .1. :1,
t .AC. ~.
I 'q.i *:..
I :..L' -
. asa, alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, "Arsenift
. ....... .."tble form. expressedd as erce6itum of Metallic Arsenic) not more
.. n *ne on the said label, was false and misleading, and by reason of
K. adJt.t the article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and
~~.. ttie'pitehaser in that it represented that the said article contained
.B e e.#tet-klUble form (expreSsed as per centum of metallic arsenic)
lgN:"i~rtitti of not more than 0O. per cent, whereas it contained arsenic
..::wate1Sol1hlb4.orm (expressed asI per centum of metallic arsenic) in a
tteri greater than 0.2 per cent.
..:O'vember 21, 1920, no claimant 'having appeared for the property, judg-
StHOfteondemltionl and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the
.' Wakrtattie product be destroyed bh the United States marshal.
**... ,: .. .. ... .*
ii, :. .:* .. .
!::: .j e .'t U ie Sta
i...,i A..tfthranding os -
.. .., '-t*a ocf a.inety, Pin
i'"lP. :. ihws ammrne
! t fOn l'saeltegedbe 4,-. 1928
.! ...maaeting upon &' ,ep
K=iO tiothe United Stal
H. eal Supply (Inc.),
*- Vclation of the insectic
SBtate of Minnesota int
b iicrnh'.a- a misbrande
It was alleged in the
SflIowing statemenits, "
. .ftrness as a'general an
lt general disinfectant,"
" May be used
.-and stimulatingg repair," Di
:: to 2% with water to cut or
nart of water and see that
te 0the can and carton conta
and by reason of the said s
a to 'deceive and mislead th
article had a wide range of
and was an effective disinfect
instruments under all conditi
weaold disinfect wounds and
ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of
U. S. v Marrinan Medical Supply (Inc.). Plea
and costs. (I. & F. No. 1443. Dom. No. 21681.)
, the United States attorney for the Distri
ort of the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
tes for said district an information against t
St. Paul, Minn.. alleging shipment by said
ide act of 1910, on or about February 8, 19
o the State of South Dakota, of a quanti
d fungicide within the
information that the a
This preparation has
le was m
tiseptic and disinfectant. May
" May be used for disinfecting
as a lotion
it is thorough
inning the sa
:tant under a
ons: and thai
ct of Minne-
26, from the
ty of Pinol,
isbranded in that. the
y wide range of use-
used as a
a healing agent-Apply Pinol diluted
s a douche-Add teaspoonful to each
,hly mixed," borne on the label affixed
id article, were false and misleading,
.e article was labeled and branded so
in that they represented that the said
,: effective disinfectant under all conditions.
.: :have a wide range of usefulness as a gen
was not an effective disinfectant under a
surgical instruments under all conditions;
i. disinfect wounds or retard the growth of b:
fi- dhisinfectant under all conditions.
" '.Misbranding was alleged for the fourth
"partially of an inert substance, to wit, w
.t. t, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi, and
[ t. e staid inert substance so present in the
eireCtly, or at'all, on the label affixed to
Saidd= article, nor,
.@.t..h and every su
.ti ea and the total
H. I&:ialy and correct
i *...:At the general
in lieu thereof,
bstance or ingre'
percentage of t
tly, or at all, on
term, 1929, of t
a general antiseptic and disinfectant,
I conditions, would disinfect surgical
the said article when used as directed
rowth of bacteria, and would be an
whereas the said article would not
eral antiseptic and disinfectant, and
II conditions, it would not disinfect
ind when used as directed, would not
acterin.a, and would not be an effective
ason that the
a substance t
the name and percentage amount of
article were not stated plainly and
the can or the carton containing the
were the name n
lent of the article
.e inert, substance
:he said label.
e United States I
ud percentage amount of
having fungicidal proper-
so present therein stated
District Court, District of
tne statements, to wit,, "--'of um :,yrofae 1..OZo -.* -... .merc:.
ents M.73%," borne on the label affixed to the cans.aentaining tl. said .
represented that its standard and quality were such tbat it coptizi'.
hydroxide in the proportion of not less'than 1.52 per .cent and.a a tin3
ingredients, that is to say, substances that do not preventdestroy, ep el,
gate insects, in the proportion of not more than 88.738:pr ..cent, *... .
strength and purity of the article blt below .the professed :.sp .aW.r
quality under which it was sold in that it contained no soditm,..
and contained more than 88.73 per cent of inert ingredients. ..:.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements to wit, kMOI
Hydroxide 1.52% Inert Ingredients 88.7T8%," and ".Save .the ..
Reed's Kalosecta A Soil Insecticide And You Save The Life, Kaloseeta I*.....
For Tree Insects Healthy Roots Free From Insects...Insures. A Hestt
Tree Reed's Kalosecta is a soil insecticide for destroying inseet:.
the soil and around the roots. Insect Infested Roots Leaves 'mai,
Brown And Fall Prematurely-Eventually Causes Death," borne .on th*t..
label, and the statements, to wit, "Fruit and Shade Trees, shrubs and ..
vines often have aphids or larval pests devouring or poisoning the :sap at":l
soil line. Reed's Kalosecta is the remedy. Thereupon impied.gM
moisture will start slow chemical reactions destroying insect life and.invigol
ing the tree, shrub or woody vine. If borers at, the soil line db ...a
yield to the first application repeat the treatment a few times once every :
4 months," borne on the circulars inclosed and shipped with the article W
false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements the artile, ..
labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purbchaser in that..
represented that the article contained sodium hydroxide in the propoitA |
not less than 1.52 per cent and contained inert ingredients in the prop '""
not more than 88.73 per cent, and that the said article when used as-
would be an effective remedy against all insects that infest the roots of, ..
would destroy all insect life, and would be an effective remedy against ,.
all larval pests, and all borers that infest or attack trees, shrubs, and vi
the soil line, whereas the said article contained no sodium hydroxide. it.H
talked more than 88.73 per cent of inert ingredients, and the said article
used as directed would not be an effective remedy against all insects that
the roots of trees, would not destroy all insect life, and would _ht: *. te
effective remedy against aphids, all larval pests, and all borers that infest j
attack trees, shrubs, and vines at the soil line. .: ..: "
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the statement, to
"Net Weight 1 Lb.," borne on the can label, represented that each of said c.
contained 1 pound of the article, whereas the contents of the cans wepi
correctly stated on the outside thereof, in that each of said cans contained 1,
than 1 pound of the article. *1 -
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article co iU
partially of inert substances or ingredients, to wit, substances
tine and sulphur, that is to say, substances that do not prevent
or mitigate insects,, and the name and percentage amount of
one of the said inert substances or ingredients so present in
not stated plainly and correctly on the label affixed
taining the said article, nor, in lieu thereof, were
amount of each and every substance or ingredient of
pildnl nrnnprties and thp t1tl nnprppntann of fth inert
the article ..a.ig .
uhciibnnoeu .nc ilnli
~.r -s ..j~..
;4~4~4:hJA I .1.
~ ~j* ..~~.:us.:L: I *
-. t.. -~
I *.. I ~H.
*** : .
lf.H Ae bean beetle dust:
H... Ape White Lead & Color Works.
Ai.nbs kclilorinated lime:
,; Babbitt, B. T.-..--------.-.-
Jeax moth cake:
Si::.- Apex Products Corporation.......-
"Bemn beetle dust:
iAme White Lead & Color Works..
L loqinated lime:
v. Babbit, B. T..........------...........--
11: H. Northwestern Mfg. Co--... ........
H.. Cyani potassium:
... aul, P. ., & Co.................
S Jfrctaut, Perfection cresylic:
H'. Norsthwestern Mfg. Com......
*.. tSir Co----------
N. J. No.
Eureka lice killer:
Eureka Mfg. Co.- ---- -.--
Kalosecta No. 1:
Reed, M. C., & Son.............
Lice killer, Eureka:
Eureka Mfg. Co.----------.
Apex Products Corporation......
Perfection cresylic disinfectant:
Northwestern Mfg. Co..
Marrinan Medical Supply (Inc.)
Caul, P. M., & Co:.............
Independent Coal Tar Co---...-
(Caul, P. M., & Co -..-----
Stellar Co---- -------
N. J. No.
.4; ."* r
^ ~~~* *****W
: "" :
:.. :Ai i
q ... ".... .
.* ** *nf
. : .
'i t.i: :! : .
"* ** F H
: .** "*. : :* *
*" :* :j. : '
*. : iF. !
*. .. *
: *" ..
.. .: -i@
** .- .. *.
... .. :i : .IR
$ .. .. ** *.7 ..:E.:E
.: : EEE.a*' "
.. .." : ". E
: :*. *
". *' ....* :
:. "...:: *.*:'
::.: ..:.. :***. .
: **,..g. *:: t.
s:.H .1 ......
m H H *
.l ;!. 'a.-
Eq .... w.
. .I.. :X... i r.-. t... .
S i."*.: i *" ::*.::: :" .:*." ."w...
*A*: A .. ** *h. .. .. ___. *
. .:1. ". -: -.
,, "",,, ,,,, ,, ,, ;, ^:
E:.,..'::'.. ""f ,, v- ,..
S*.. !!.." I ** 4 .. ." *"
: :. *..: Sil se *:-" ~ ** .i :i *
. ***_ **fB JfB ii\*B-BB_| *AH A** .-
" ." "" **": .. ". : :*, j *".. ": *
S.......... ... ........ H .
.. ". ** "\ '.l ::*e:: i.'*s* :"' in-** .- A ':
S .:* i* H .
. .. .. .. b *.
*" **;fi"."I ** S .. "H *
****. *.? .... .
** .:I.* "- ..H i d *
.: ** .*:: .
...E" a. .. ..
.. ... "..'.". ...
..' *.. .
.. .. *.: ..
". "I.. .. .. .
'pI ::.. *"
H~I. H.. .1.
* ~ .1.,
* .. ..
A L*. .
V:. .*. ii.
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Hillm IIn 11111lllllllII Hli llml1
3 1262 08582 4703
H, *. 4 *