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:
AA00008549:00005

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text























; ::::"?"x *a' H. : ":i: ?~twta :? "ie :ac ee ~ l ..
"" k. 'i .i.. :4.. p 5;n55.... |j aef-K .ts ^ ^ .... ..h
.. ...rsmzilf ancle

.I.. iq No. 28432.)
^2b,-1.8, the United
u U :pon a report by
.. ..... the United States
Sim en, trading as the
egng shipment by said defendant,
enor abet November 16, 1927, from
Ohilo, of a quantity of Chloro-Orystali
JiIcide within the meaning of said
SAnalysis of a sample of the artiel
stated of paradichlorobenuene, with sm
ml oring!
Jt wvs alleged in the information
e.,.. ttsment, to wit, "Special Use
k" n," Bedrooms, Basement, for o
*A. inI.: Tobacco Smoke, etc.," born


g hets said article, were
t in the article was
Siasier, in that they
hia Ikrewome all odors
mfI"leai the article, when
;gdiii~fniF jdnatit' animal.


Eala. U. U. v. Rufum John Ruflen (asu-
a bE guilty. flne, $100. (1. & r. No.
States attorney for the Eastern District
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
for said district an information against
Eaudemort Laboratories, Detroit, Mich.,
in violation of the insecticide act o 1910,
ithe State of Michigan into the State of
s, which was a misbranded insecticide and
act.
e by this department showed that it con-
aall amounts of methyl salicylate and pink
that the article was misbranded in that
Daily in Bathroom, Garbage Can, Living
)vercoming odors of Cooking, Domestic
! on the label affixed to the cans contain-


false and misleading; and by reason
labeled and branded so as to deceive
represented that the article, when used
of cooking, domestic animals, tobacco


used as directed,
tobacco smoke, etc.


would not


overcome


the said
I mislead
directed,
oke, etc.,
odors of


i.t was further alleged in the information that there had been shipped with
li e certain circulars, one of each of which had been annexed to the in-
atlon and marked "Circular A" and "Oircular B," respectively. Mis-
'"- of' the article was alleged for the further reason that certain state-
...ntaained in the said circulars were false and misleading, and by rea-
Ie said statements the article was labeled and branded so as to deceive
S"..i-m.ad.. the purchaser, in that they represented that the article, when used
(j..1 .... _- .- Ais..E_ .., .. -.. ,...', n... .nf. ol Al -o a ana, hi-,


."














in the house and would .:4lhe ome; w an -
against moths, under all Uoii ., ani would e.Iniate mot
an effective remedy agai4les m ths in cl closets, .
chests, overstuffed furnitufr tnos, lgs, carpet moth-infestei
etc.; would be an effective rezugdy again mosquitoes, bedbugs, 11i I:
would produce 100 per cent resgts and; would be 100 per ent effect
cases; that moth balls packed away i nothingg do not- kill mnte'
larvae therein; would be an effective dbnedy against moths in all .
under all conditions; and woulal give. ]) per cent protection in :. -.i
whereas the said article, .when used a Bfrected, would not .act as a il
tant; would not overcome all disagrlaMe odors; would not improytj
health; would not, in evaporating, give oechlorine gas; would not relie
fever; did not contain free or available e1horine; would not make ofce. I
healthful, and would not be an effective treatment for, and a pro
against, influenza, grippe, nasal catarrh, hay fever, asthma, colds, atiCp
diseases of the breathing organisms; would not purify the air; would
fii all the claims made for the product by the manufacturers; would nt
the home free from all sorts of odors and would not purify the air; w"
eliminate all odors in hotels; would not overcome all odors in hospital .lB
would not eliminate all odors and purify the air in waiting rooms,
rooms, and toilets of stations; would not eliminate odors of all kind%
purify the air in banks, vaults, libraries, restaurants, cafes, all kinds
stitutions, churches, schools, colleges, public buildings, undertakers, inm
mausoleums, pool and billiard halls and stores of all kinds, fish markets
markets, etc.; would not destroy odors by chemical action; would notW
one of hay fever, catarrh, asthma, colds, etc.; would not act like c
would not have a therapeutic effect; would not fulfill all the claims m
It by the manufacturers; would not keep the house free from all so
odors; would not disinfect the air in the home; would not free it from
ease-carrying bacteria; would not protect the health of everyone in the b
and would not disinfect the home; would not be an effective remedy 4
moths, under all conditions, and would not exterminate moths; would 3
an effective remedy against clothes moths in clothes closets, trunks, ..
chests, overstuffed furniture, pianos, rugs, carpets, moth-infested garaif
etc.; would not be an effective remedy against mosquitoes, bedbugs, fliesti,
etc.; would not produce 100 per cent results and would not be 100 per.
effective min all cases; would not be an effective remedy against moths 1*4
cases and under all conditions; would not give 100 per cent protection:..i
cases; and moth balls packed away in clothing do kill moths and their-.
therein. HE -I
On February 24, 1930, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to thte:
nation, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
-


ART HUH


M. HYDE,


Secretary


1177. Adulteration and mimbranding of Green Cruoss Nie-Tomne. ':
Five 1001-pounu Drnum, et al.. of Green Cross Nico-Tone..
dee1ree o condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. a'
150V1 R Nt]n I "-.--, f= m A,













lt the article watsee w the profess, standard and quality
e .It was d, in that it con ed less than 2.75 per =cent of nicotine,.
'.mnot .lan7er cent of inert in dients.
i". was. alleged fc the re..on that the above-quoted. statements
lb. (Iabowere false and mle g, and by reason of the said state-
z.ticlee wasr labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the
bi.-that they..representeA that:the article contained nicotine in the
-not less**than 2.75 per cent and contained inert ingredients in
ti:.p of not more than 97.25 per cent; whereas the article contained
1T6 pier. cent of nicotine and more than 97.25 per cent of inert


-ber 28, 1929, no claimant
aemnation and forfeiture
StH. &te. prodUct be destroyed b:
.::.. A .:
n. .luytaais of Kill-It. U. S.
...... .a..." of guilty. Fine, $100.
...I....: ember". 14, 1929, the United
ting upon a report by the
'COurt of the United States
I:tl1 Jersey Chemical Co. (Inc.)
.- bysaid company in violati
|aiy "", 1927, from the State of
... quatity of Kill-It, which was
i!1.|.r,-it"n'the meaning of said act.
..k:.,fysis of a sample of the article
H:. 'i.... primarily of mineral oil, and
:aii satnt of essential oil.
I-l...:::.t. was alleged in the information t
iiti g_ .reuts, to wit, "Disinfectant
P11 a...i.. a a. n o-n.-.


- -


joomx


L. ILtf to every mediJ
. will be ready for u
., "e. ..Use a good at
o .eens up the r<
lilftee atmosphere.
,*,, Disinfection of


3-ulose wma
urn-size room.
se. *
omizer spray.


oom when
It kills
Rooms.


* JlVlt. close the door. Open the door after
.. gi; disinfected Disinfection is
i~p m.while occupied. 'Kill-It' is not irrita
. q:wa that could be used while patient is
itii 4ilnfet any place or furni
'taj i d Kill-It Disinfectant Spray. It does
.i .crde,. but kills germs and parasites.
*"..*R "Kill-It kills pests and parasites alma
; .Ta... M.ee, Depluming Mites-Spray heavily


H Mmey. s -iiI sprayed
' iritate the skin. Kill-I


directly on the bi
t penetrates the fea


C


halving appeared for the property, judg-
was entered, and it was ordered by the
y the United States marshal.


us M. HYDE, Secretary of


Agriculture.


v. South Jersey Chemical Co. (Inc.).
(I. & F. No. 1506. Dom. No. 23152.)
States attorney for the District of New
SSecretary of Agriculture, filed in the
for said district an information against
, a corporation, Vineland, N. J., alleging
on of the insecticide act of 1910, on or
New Jersey into the State of Delaware,
a misbranded insecticide and fungicide

by this department showed that it con-
paradichlorobenzene, with a very small


hat the article i
* Direct
ws and spray in
Close the door
Directions Never
It is absolutely


vas misbranded in that
ions for Use For disin-
the air about two ounces
and in a few hours the
dilute-Kill-It is ready
harmless. Its pleasant


ever it is sprayed and produces a healthy,
germs, prevents diseases, treats diseases.
Close windows, fill the room with fumes of


* two
alsd
citing,
in th
ture,
the
Just
ost in


hours and the room is practi-
obtained by spraying in the
so it is the safest disinfecting
e room. Wherever you think
clothing, etc. have in your
work. Does not stain, does
SSpray it-We Guarantee the
Lstantly. For Chick-


over the chickens (at night) while
rds, do not give a bath, it might
others and destroys those parasites.


N!

t
MN
7'








ing w p. ,that it was haMlesa :. mai
w<|ods. a health utuaa..e,
,' ,ducks, etc., woul4 be t cpe
.. canker, and would, wtot ri
Iee ota dogs, pigs, horses, COWal ets.;
infetant, it was not harm Uu and When
for the above purposes. :
On December 13, 1929, a plea eof gut
behalf of the defendant company and th
AaSrtm


6r beasm W
."nt tre .
peated u a
hereas tifMt ..a .
used as 0sld


y to rae orwonaono wai
e court imposed a fne of I
ac M. HmuL Mrflawswryf A.


rh n use as (h g

aor chice wa :.
n effeeoiel.
article. was .f.*
would not Mt4l
."
C


S
* .1
:n.
-


H *.. : :
* I y i..ii.


ltT9. Adulteration and antlbtandltn *.t Plantobae.
Plantobas. Detault decree of destaruotion
1512. 5. No. 198.)
On November 7, 19S, the United States attorney fo:
of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretar
in the District Court of the United States for said d
seizure and condemnation of 7 bags of Plantobac. It
that the article had been shipped, on or about Septemb
form Products Co. (Inc.), from Yorklyn, Del., into the


and that having been
packages at Erie, Pa
cide within the mean
It was alleged in
statements, to wit, "
tag attached to each


U. S..t.
entered. (1.


r the Weatern Dj
y of Agricultar,
district a libel pr
ras alleged in the
er 7, 1929, by the
State of Pennsyl


so transported it remained unsold in the original unblr
., and that it was an adulterated and misbranded bnai
ing of the insecticide act of 1910. .
the libel that the article was adulterated in tha t
Nicotine 1.00% Inert Ingredients 99.00%," borne or9c
of the bags containing the said article, represented


its standard and quality were such that it contained nicotine in the prot
of not less than 1 per cent, and contained inert substances, i. e., subt
that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, in the propor
not more than 99 per cent; whereas the strength and purity of the
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold,
it contained less than 1 per cent of nicotine, and more than 99 per
inert ingredients. .": ...,
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit "
1.00% Inert Ingredients 99.00%," "Pulverized Tobacco Powder For
to protect plant life against Aphis, Thrips, Midge, Greenfly, Black-fly .
Lice, Etc. Highly recommended for dusting on plants, shrubs, vines,
vegetables and flowers-in Gardens, Truck Farms, Greenhouses, etc.
tions Simply sprinkle or dust Plantobac on at frequent intervals. It is
applied either by hand or with a duster. Plantobae is very finely 'pow
which assures best results," borne on the said tag, were false and misleta|
and by reason of the said statements the article was labeled and brandaS
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that they represented tbit
article contained not less than 1 per cent of nicotine, and not more
per cent of inert ingredients, and when used and applied as directed,,
be an effective control for aphids, thrips, midge, green fly, black ffl.!IS
lice, etc.; whereas the said article contained less than 1 per cent of -...
and more than 99 per cent of inert ingredients, and when used and.
as directed, would not be an effective control for aphids, thrips, midgeg .I
fly, black fly, plant lice, etc. :,
On March 7, 1930, no claimant having appeared for the property, ji.i.
was entered finding the product adulterated and misbranded anM ord.6ri
it be destroyed by the United States marshal.
ArTHUR M. HYDE, Seoretary of A.ri


. .2




12:'..-i [


JIWGMENT


t ';a.s' adulterated and mi nde insecticide within the meaning of the
t act of 1910. '
Milawarauon of the article was.all ed in the libel for the reason that it
I.SItefded for use on vegetation, a when used on vegetation as directed
llh label, would. be injurious to the Jliage thereof.
i...abrnding was alleged for the rea n that the statements, to wit, "Arsenic
'. ter soluble form as metallic no ..more than 0.2%," with respect to the
.f of the article..contained in 1- nd bags, "Water Soluble Arsenic (as
..|.... e) not over .2%," with respect t the portion of the article contained in
4-pound bags, and "Beetle Dust for the Control of the Mexican Bean
.e.e DiUst the young bean plants as soon as the first leaves appear
MP,. Beetle Dust is an excellent dust for melons and other plants infested
Sb certainn chewing insects," with respect to both lots, borne on the labels
t t: to the bags containing the article, were false and misleading, and by
uwub.of the said statements the article was labeled and branded so as to
Sle and mislead the purchaser, in that they represented that the said
lile contained arsenic in water-soluble form, as metallic, in the proportion
S.ha mae than 0.2 per cent, and when used as directed, could be used safely
i*tI* foliage of beans, melons, and other plants; whereas the said article
'amined arsenic in water-soluble form, as metallic, in a proportion greater
0.2 per cent, and could not be used safely on the foliage of beans, melons,
.other plants, but such use would cause serious injury to the foliage thereof.


. LHn1teration was alleged with respect to the po
taud. in 1-pound bags for the further reason th
Jiii .urn_ Fluosilicate 5%," borne on the label, rep
.:'... 1nality were such that it contained sodium flu
.i:. ......no*:t: :.les than 5 per cent; whereas the strengtJ
, ^Ioton. of the article fell below the professed sti
i *'bhirho it was sold in that it contained less than 5 per
iab: Mibranding of the portion of the product conta
ll for the further reason that the statement, to
Sa, borne on the label, was false and misleading,
H:H *statement the article was labeled and branded so as


irtion of the product con-
at the statement, to wit,
resented that its standard
ostlicate in the proportion
h and purity of the said
indard and quality under


cent of sodium
ined in 1-poun
wit, Sodium
and by reason
to deceive and


fluosilicate
d bags was
Fluosilieate
of the said
mislead the


. H trhaser, in that it represented that the said portion of the article contained
. i 1iot leui than 5 per cent of sodium fluosilicate; whereas it contained less than
;S.. per cent of sodium fluosilicate.
Miabranding was alleged with respect to the portion of the article contained
jft 4-pound bags for the further reason that it consisted partially of inert
ubstances or ingredients, to wit, substances other than calcium arsenate,
suiphur, and sodium silicofluoride, that is to say, substances that do not pre-
tii. gat, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, and the name and percentage amount
of each and every one of the said inert substances so present in the article
'were not stated plainly and correctly on the label affixed to each of the said
p:: ound bags; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage amount of
eah and every substance or ingredient of the article having insecticidal
p'! erties, and the total percentage of inert ingredients stated plainly and
*ete:roreetly on the said label.
:.I On January 2, 1930, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment
"' of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court
i.;. that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.


ARTHUa M.


HYDE,


Secretary


Agriowiture.


* L$81 Adulteration and mlubrandlng of Green Cross Beetle Mort. U. S. v.
: Ebty-tlx 1-Pound Packages of Green Gross Beetle Mort. Default
decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No.
...1. 1 1. R. No. 209.-












utrnice. to wit, "For Kilu.t.:: *' Flea pey .and OtVH.rL.".:
S.,nects. To Be Applied as-.:,Dut. *; F.'j.f *:..ploaw.,i
Water Soluble Arsenic (Expressed. s Metallic), not more that X-O%. .
The seller guarantees the material .sold to be trueot label, if iabMI.|.4
on the label affixed to the packages containing the said article, werp Re
misleading; and by reason of..the said statements the article was.. ...lai.
branded so as to deceive .nd mislead th purchaser,. in that they r ..
that theiarticle, when used as directed, .could be so used safely on the=..
of melons, that it contained water-soluJe arsenic (expressed as metall.|
the proportion of not more than 1 per, c:eent, and that it was true .to0t
whereas the said article could not be so, used safely on the foliage of
but such ,use would prove seriously injurious to such foliage under
conditions, it contained water-soluble arsenic (expressed as metallie)...i 1
Proportion much greater than 1 per cent, and it was not true to.label, but .
contain much more water-soluble arsenic (expressed as metallic) tha il
claimed on the label.
On April 30, 1930, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgD
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the *0W
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal. .


ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of


1182. Siubranding of Kaloseeta No. 2. U. S.
(M. C. Reed & Son). Pleas of guilty.
Dom. No. 22166.)


Agric ultr
:i


v. M. C. Reed and Carl B
Fine., l. (I. & F. No. 1
-,,.


On October 16, 1929, the United States attorney for the Western D.ist:
of Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fled14
the District Court of the United States for said district an information agl
M. C. Reed and Carl Reed, a partnership trading as M. C. Reed & Son, Car
Mo., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the insecticide .
of 1910, on or about March 18, 1927, from the State of Missouri into the ISta tei
of Illinois, of a quantity of Kalosecta No. 2, which was a misbra i!
insecticide and fungicide within the meaning of said act. '^i
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded in thi.
the statements, to wit, "Reed's Kalosecta No. 2. Use on CUicnj
bers for the Nematode blight, and lettuce for crown-rot Save the Roi
and You Save the Life. Reed's Kalosecta A Soil Insecticide Health.
Roots Free from Insects Insures a Healthy Tree. Insect Infested Roti
Leaves Turn Brown and Fall Prematurely---eventually causes death. Ua
on tomatoes to stop the Aphis blight, Cucumbers for the Nemato4
blight," borne on the label affixed to the cans containing the article, wW
false and misleading, and by reason of the said statements the article waHl
labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser in that thO..,H
represented that the article, when used as directed, would be a satisfaet.y
treatment for nematode blight of cucumbers and for crown rot of letjaiqigi
would je an effective remedy against all insects that infest the roots of pInana.
and trees, and against aphids and nematodes; whereas the said article, wlg
used as directed, would not be effective for the said purposes. :.
On January 13, 1930, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the informattiH
and the court imposed fines totaling $2. I..


ARTHURT M. HYDE, Secretary of


A rcultute.


.
.


......









LsE ana around ne roots. n '" -Mea tny noots Free irom insects
L a Healthy Tree. Insect Infes d Roots Leaves Turn Brown and Fall
e ly-Eventually Causes Death" borne on the label affixed to the cans
g the said article, were.false fnd misleading; and by reason of the
steents the article was labeled. nd branded so as to deceive and mis-
... Purchaser, in that they repre ted that the article contained sodium
S.de in the proportion of not less than 1.52 per cent and contained nicotine
.. proportion of 0.25 per cent, and when used af directed would be an
.... remedy against all tree insects, all insects infesting or attacking the
..itrees, and against all insects in the soil and around the roots of trees;
.the said article contained no sodium hydroxide, it contained less than
a... -cent of nicotine, and when used as directed it would not be an effective
wdy against all tree insects, all insects infesting or attacking the roots of
,~t~ond would not be an effective remedy against all insects in the soil and
tw the roots of trees.
i June 3, 1927, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information,
i Se court imposed a fine of $20.


ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of


4., Misbranding of Zobeline. U. S. v. Ernst Zobel Co. (Inc
Sgunllty. Fine, $100. (I. & F. No. 1486. Dom. No. 23828.)
@b March 13, 1930, the United States attorney for the Eastern
M York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,


H: fI$SItI Court.of the United State
|h l. ant Zobel Co. (Inc.), a corporate
t: t efndant, in violation of the insect
...Ini from the State of New York
Illiija.:hh was a misbranded fungicide
-t... t was alleged in the informati


s for said di
on, Brooklyr
ticide act ol
into Porto
within the
on that the


strict an
a, N. Y., a
f 1910, on
Rico, of
meaning
article \


;;lt consisted partially of an inert substance, to
l|II.tbstance that does not prevent, destroy, repel, or
..a percentage amount of the said inert substance
|l.: ot stated plainly and correctly on each or any lal
iilliu ram containing the said article; nor, in lieu t
pseentage amounts of each and every substance
:.having fungicidal properties, and the total perce
Sm present therein stated plainly and correctly on
On March 17, 1980, the defendant entered a plea
:.P 'i: .the court imposed a fine of $100.
== i[: :


ARTHUR M.


HYDE,


int
lie!
0I
a
of
vat


-ormati
going sh
About
quanti
said ac
Smisbi


Agriculture.


Plea


District of
filed in the


on against the
ipment by said
September 16.
ty of Zobeline,


t.
8a


ended


that


vit, water, that is to say, a
mitigate fungi, and the name
so present in the article were
bel borne on or affixed to the
hereof, were the names and
or ingredient of the article
ntage of the inert substance
the said label.
of guilty to the information,


Secretary of


Agriculture.


.ii33i8.* Ahulteration and mistbranding of Plantgard. U. S. v. National Pr
i..:::.. .eta (Ine.). Plea of guilty. Fine, 925 and costs. (I. & F. No. 1
.., Dom. No. 24032.)
.. n Sep8tember 27, 1929, the United States attorney for the Southern Dist
gt .f*Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
. H'lltiet Court of the United States for safd district an information against
National Products (Inc.), a corporation, Quincy, Ill., alleging shipment by
.ii .. "ny, in violation of the insecticide act of 1910, on or about June 1, 1'
.i ..::. the State of Illinois into the State of Missouri, of a quantity of P1
s.l'gaa. which was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide and fungicide wil
.il.le- ningiu of said act.
lfl .. It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that


od-
504.
rict
the
the
said
927,
ant
thin


the
Vfif.


.).









e .m Borne .thu 1i el, repr thattlwthe M'
gained not less than 0.05. x- cent ,f pyr hrum ;t a it coutued uope
thrum, but other substances baibeen s stituted terefr. .
:Misbranding was alleged lfotrthe areas, that theC:%tments. to wit,. &
Ing. Naphthalene 3%, Sodium; l3uuqgide1,05%o, Pyrethrnum .05%, Sulpa e I
Sulphur 10%, Trace Nicotte Inst Ing. 85%," bnie on the label, *
false and misleading; and by reason of the said statements the article
labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, hi that t
represented that the article contained noit less than 3 per cent of naphlthal
not less than 0.05 per cent of pyrethrum, contained 1 per cent of sulpl
and not more than 85 per cent of inert ingredients; whereas the said asti
contained less than 3 per cent of napthalene, it contained no pyrethu
it contained more than 1 per cent of sulphate, and more than 85 per (-


of inert ingredients.
. Misbranding was
"Plantgard is to be
green bugs, plant
cucumbers, melons,


flowers, and g
leading; and
deceive and m
when used a
green bugs, a
melons, pickle


as the said article,
purposes.


alleged for the f
used against certa
lice as
and pickle vine:


arden vegetables,"
by reason thereof
mislead the purcha
5 directed, would
11 plant lice, and
vines, shrubbery,


bor
the
ser,
be


further reason


that the statements,


in garden insects including cabbage won
well as insects that infest pumpkh||
s, also numerous other shrubbery, vineil
ne on the said label, were false and miSi'
article was labeled and branded so as t!
in that they represented that the artieE,1
an effective control for cabbage wormtx


all insects that infest pumpkins; cucumber,:
vines, flowers, and garden vegetables; where&


when used as directed,


Misbranding was alleged for
partially of inert substances a
sulphur, naphthalene, sodium f
do not prevent, destroy, repel,
and percentage amounts of eac
or ingredients were not stated
the cartons containing the arti


percentage


amount of


each


having insecticidal or fun
inert substances or ingre
rectly on the said label.
On April 7, 1930, a plea
of the defendant company,


d


th
nd
Iuo


e further
ingredien
ride and
r mitigate
and every
mainly and
: nor. in


every


subsi


would not be effective for the sa


reason that the'
ts, to wit, substa


nicotine, namely,
insects or fungi
one of the said
correctly on the
lieu thereof, wer
dancee or ingrediez


article cons01t0
nces other thau4
substances tlhat,ii
, and the name,
inert substaiceeg
label affixed" t .J
e the name an.
it of the artiel.I


gicidal properties, and the total percentage of tinS
clients so present therein, stated plainly and co:-
.El .il.
of guilty to the information was entered on behal. ui
and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs. .1


ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of


Agriculture.\


1186.


On .
Texas,
Court


McDani
the inse
into the
was a I
It wa
the stat
"Relian


Misbranding of Reli
Daniel. Tried to t
$30. (I. & F. No. 146
January 6. 1928, the I
acting upon a report 1
of the United States


, El Paso,


cticide
State
nisbran
s alleg
ements


act of
of Illi


ance lice and mite k
he court and a jury.
53. Dona. No. 22196.)
United States attorney
by the Secretary of Ag
for said district an


miller. IT. 5. v. Fannile Xl@-
, Verdlet of guilty. 1li,.


for
ricul
info


Tex., alleging shipment by said d
S1910, on or about March 28, 1927,
inois, of a quantity of Reliance lic


ded insect
ed in the
regarding


icide within the meaning of said
information that the article was
the said article, to wit, "89.69%


ice Lice and Mite Killer Given only in the drinking


the Western District of
[ture, filed in the District.
irmation against Wannit
defendant, in violation d.
from the State of 'efli
e and mite killer, whisk1


act. :
misbranded in th&
Water Inert"'a4
water. Rids Fow








**wgto the flia or the egg'."born on the label of the. bottle containing the
Si.ad on thuwyrappers, were fale and misleading; and by reason of the
Statements the article was labele$ and branded so as to deceive and mis-
tuhe purchaser, ..in that they -eprep ented that the article contained inert
Mients, namely, substances that d not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
t when used. as directed, in the proportion of not more than 89.69 per
jJW%3jn when used as directed woua be an effective remedy against lice,
Blue bugs, fleas, sticktight fleas, and all other vermin and bloodsucking
et pests on fowls; whereas the saidarticle consisted entirely of inert ingre-
*. when used as directed, and when used as directed, would not be an effec-
*pmedy against lice, mites, blue bugs, fleas, sticktight fleas, and all other


1in and bloodsucking insect pests
Ssiauding was alleged for the
pletel of inert substances, that
l,I repel, or mitigate insects w
...stage amount of each and every
its so present in the article were


I


'~ jjH
:NrH[~ *. kM.
Hi
h H
ft ~ p.
V:.. .5..
i~H~ A.q111
i.e. .. an
I.' ...
rn-P..H S -


e label affixed t
.Ja the said bI
tApril 25, 1930,
ipril 26, 1930, th
;ed by the court,
and the court i


o the bo
bottles.
the case
e jury h
returned
imposed E


t


on fowli
further
is to say
hen usec
one of 1
not stat


a.
reason that
, substances
d as directed
the said inert
?d plainly an


:tles containing the article,


the article consisted
that do not prevent,
, and the name and
: substances or ingre-
d correctly, or at niall,


or on


the wrappers


came on for trial before the court and a jury.
having heard the evidence and having been duly
a verdict of guilty on all counts of the informa-
i fine of $30.


ARTHUR M.


tdulteratilon and misbrau
. WO PaMtl of Amerceo Dry
tion and-destruction. (I.
April 10, 1930, the United
Slnon a report by the Secre


|:! ..the United States for sai
|t :.:.4 pails of Amerco dry
!t c'l:..e had been shipped on
! &.:. Milling Co., Council Bluff
iiriera^k and that having
H.,', l gi.u unbroken packages
. m.. (abbranded insecticide,


Sadist


ending"
Insect
& F. N
States
ta 1y of
:riet a ]


insecticic
or about
s, Iowa,
been so
at Omah
other th


de.


HYDE,


Secretary of


of Amereo dry
ielde. Default
Jo. 1522. S. No.
attorney for the
Agriculture, file
libel praying sei
It was alleged


February 18,
from the Stat
transported,
ta, Nebr., and
an Paris gree]


Agriculture.


insecticide.
decree of co
208.)
SDistrict of r
d in the Distr
zure and cond


in the libel


U. S. v.
ndemna-


Nebraska,
ict Court
emnation
that the


1930, by the American Feed
e of Iowa into the State of
it remained unsold in the
that it was an adulterated
n and lead arsenate, within


*ji.". H .RmaRning of the insecticide act of 1910.
i::. .1. .. .I! flWa. alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that the state-
;Hi i....H.-, "Active Ingredients 36.00% Consisting of Naphthalene 30% Powdered
i 94..... c. Nicotine 1%, Sulphur 2.25%, Crude Carbolic Acid 1.25%, Creosote
a 1.0%~, Total Inert Matter 64.00%," borne on the label affixed to the pails
:'K"'"..H...... ..g the article, represented that its standard and quality were such
...' it contained, not less than 30 per cent of naphthalene, 1 per cent of nico-
S'i.. 2.25 per cent of sulphur, 1.25 per cent of crude carbolic acid, and 1.50
..P cat of creosote oil and contained total inert matter, namely, substances
H :!NH ut do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, in the proportion of not
li.te::: e than 64 per cent; whereas the strength and purity of the article fell below
ii. alo..refessed standard and quality under which it was sold, in that it con-
uie.d leas than 30 per cent of naphthalene, less than 1 per cent of nicotine,
.Iil. ..ba: hn 2,25 per cent of sulphur,.less than 1.25 per cent of crude carbolic acid,
:.] ~less than 1.50 per cent of creosote oil, and contained total inert matter
Sproportion greater than 64 per cent.
1b. .was alleged for the reason that the above-quoted statements
Itnie on the label were false and misleading, and by reason of the said state-
Is II .-n Cm -m m md- i ... --


I














On ar e ted States attorney for the Raste.]
of Wisconsin, acting upon a report by the. Secretary of Agriculture, M.ed 131
District Court of the United States for: said district an information
the Dr. David Roberts Veterinary Co., a corporation, Waukesha, Wisll
ing shipment by said company, in violation of the insecticide act. ot "
on or about April 29, 1926, from the State of Wisconsin into the Btt
Oregon, of a quantity of Dr. David Roberts germ killer, which wits
adulterated and misbranded fungicide within the meaning of said act.":.."
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated It'
the statement, to wit, "Contains Inert Substance Water 5%," borne OaI
label affixed to the cans containing the article, represented that its
and quality were such that it contained an inert substance, namely, a.J
stance or substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate *
(bacteria), in' the proportion of not more than 5 per cent; whereas the stt
and purity of the article fell below the professed standard and quality it
which it was sold, in that it contained inert substances in a proportion fl


greater than 5
Misbranding
Substance Wa
and by reason
as to deceive
article contain
proportion of
inert substance


per cent.
was alleged for the reason that the statement, "Contains 'a
ter 5%," borne on the said label, was false and mislesa
of the said statement the article was labeled and brandS
and mislead the purchaser, in that it represented that|
ed but one inert substance, .nd that it contained water
not more than 5 per cent; Whereas it contained more thb
e. to wit, water and mineral oil, and contained water.


proportion greater than 5 per cent.
Misbranding was alleged for the fu
"Germ Killer For Washing Wounds
Making Germ Killer Solution. Use t
Use one tablespoonful to one-half ga
(or one ounce) to one gallon of water.
for washing and cleansing all kinds
seated, also for cleansing the hands,


rather reason that the statements, .-
of all kinds Directie
:wo teaspoonfuls to one quart of ..
lion of water. Use two tablespap..
This solution is valuable as an aniit
of wounds, both superficial and .I
instruments and the seat of operall


borne on the said label, were false and misleading; and by reason. aof
said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the j
chaser, in that they represented that the article, when used at the dC11
recommended on the label, would disinfect wounds, hands, instrument i
the seat of operation; whereas the said article when used at the dilution re
mended, would not disinfect wounds, hands, instruments, and the fl$
operation. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the
ments, to wit, "Dr. David Roberts Germ Killer Solution is UtlN
washing wire cuts, broken knees, open joints, collar boils, shoe boils, fi
withers, poll evil, pus cavities, quarter cracks, quittor, gravel in foot'.t
neck, sore back, foot rot," borne on the label, were false and misleadingiis
by reason of the said statements the article was labeled so as to decevtf
mislead the purchaser, in that they represented that the article wo .
effective in the treatment of wire cuts, broken knees, open joints, collar:'
shoe boils. fistulous withers. Doll evil. DUS cavities. quarter cracks.- -


E








e".g.. nor, in teu thereof, were thi name and percentage amount of each
.... every substance or ingredient of the article having fungicidal properties,
__ip, the total percentage of the inert substances or ingredients so present
stated plainly and correctly on the said label.
SOn February 27, 1930, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on
lHkalf of. the defendant company, and he court imposed a fine of $25.


. ABrnHt M. HYD, Secretary of


Agriculture.


Adultenation


and


mlsbranding


of Ena-Odr. U. S. v. 15


5/6 Domen


:. Bottles of Enu-Odr. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
.and. deutruation. (I. & F. No. 1516. B. No. 205.)
ii. i .
:.. QFebruary 13, 1930, the United States attorney for the Eastern District
..iconsin, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in
District. Court of the United States for said district a libel praying
Apure. and condemnation of 15 5/6 dozen bottles of Enz-Odr. It was alleged
the. libel that the article had been shipped on or about May 23, 1929, and
...hber 11, 1929, respectively, by the Republic Laboratories, (Inc.), Chicago,
.. rom the State of Illinois into the State of Wisconsin, and that having
|' '.so transported it remained unsold in the original unbroken packages at
liwelkee, Wis., and that it was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide
g ..fungicide other than Paris green and lead arsenate, within the meaning
, the insecticide act of 1910.
,...It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that the
f .....tements regarding the article, to wit, "Active Ingredients 8.56% Inert
. "edientu 91.44%," borne on the labels affixed to the bottles containing the
Rle, represented that its standard and quality were such that it contained
sve ingredients, namely, substances that prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
..insects or fungi, in the proportion of not less than 8.56 per cent, and contained
inert ingredients, namely, substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or
. U.tiigate-insects or fungi, in the proportion of not more than 91.44 per cent;
,: whereas the strength and purity of the article fell below the professed standard
H a::,d quality under which it was sold, in that it contained active ingredients in
.ii.- -.t:...proportion less than 8.56 per cent and contained inert ingredients in a
H. .proportion greater than 91.44 per cent.
B. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, "Active
t .gredlents 8.56% Inert Ingredients 91.44% Enz-Odr Ends Odors
it..
Non-Poisonous Harmless Disinfectant for
I: Homes-Theatres-Hospitals and Public Buildings Atmospheric
i .. Odors-Spray the room thoroughly, keeping the spray directed toward ceiling.
|i,..E-Odr freshens the atmosphere and destroys fetid body odors and those re-
IH"''ilng from cooking, tobacco, gasoline, chlorine, naphtha, congregations, excre-
.i$.fo, decaying animal or vegetable matter, etc. Especially recommended for


times, Hospitals,
|;.es, Locker a'
pAll quantity of
td boil slowly on
w-Odr and hung
lan, sauerkraut,


I
I


Theatres, Public Buildings, Restaurants, Factories, Bath
id Treatment rooms, etc. Cooking Odors-Place a
Ens-Odr in an enamel cup or pot (do not use a metal container)
stove while cooking, or a dish towel may be saturated with


I over the stove, to prevent od
, etc. Refrigerators-Iced or


B.l.tary, odorless and fresh by frequent spraying
...tity in drain pipe. Keep a small porcela
.. .-sponge or ball of cotton soaked with
"o'et tainting of one food with another.
t::i..nsure. freshness and sanitation, also
"....o. soiled, by evacuations or bed-wetting.
a.... de.,toyed by spraying. Sick Rooms-The


ors of cabbage, garlic, sau
SIceless refrigerators are
tg of all chambers. Pour s
in, china or enamel bowl
Enz-Odr in food chamber
* Nursery-Spray


mattresses and bed
Vomiting and other
atmosphere may be


sage,
kept
mall
con-
r to
oom


pads when
odors are
kept odor-


" *
i Hi


....


w








tables fog towels, dressingsa-anni .w as s, eta". m lpt .0d.
spraying. Garbage eam 4pra in an around. O,:.daily .
and destroys odors and, als@ &eckt.ksth breeding .o.f ies and flu ..:
houses (Privies) Catch Bashi..eand Ce ools- pdat1 quautt- ib.. tt
receptacle. Spray interior o.f house .and in and .arand bases of espti
frequently to eliminate odou andt prevent breeding of vermin, fls., a
insects. Cellars and Musty Rooms-Regular spraying destroys.and. pre
musty and other obnoxious odors, ad prevents breeding of vermin ani.xi
Kennels and Stables-Spraying daily detroys and prevents odor. ao*
breeding of flies. Manure piles or othe. refuse heaps should be sprae..
regular intervals. Pour small quantity Ia drains. Smoking Z
Billiard Halls, Shooting Galleries, etc.-(praying the atmosphere compm
cleans the air and destroys odors. Whenever or wherever you have an pi
you wish to destroy, use Enz-Odr; .* Makes the air as fresh and ..
less as the ocean breeze," borne on the said bottle labels, and the state
"Enz-Odr ends cooking odors Ends tobacco and household odors," bornei
the display sign accompanying the article, were false and misleading; audi
reason of the said statements the article was labeled and branded so ..
deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that they represented that the .i
article contained 8.56 per cent of active ingredients, and not more than
per cent of inert ingredients, that it was a disinfectant and was nonpoit


and harmless;
feet homes, the
phere and desti
gasoline, chlori
table matter, e
prevent tainting
of the nursery,
and would des
rooms odorless
bolic acid, and
destroy odors i
disinfectant in
of lockers, trea


and,
atres,
'oy fe
ie, na
tc., w
g one


when used as directed, would end all odors, would' Si
hospitals and public buildings, would freshen the .
tid body odors and those resulting from cooking, tob
phtha, congregations, excretions, decaying animal or v
wouldd keep refrigerators sanitary, odorless and fres1t!i
food with another, would insure freshness and santd


would render soiled or musty mattresses odorless and si
'troy odors of vomiting, would keep the atmosphere a
and fresh, and would destroy the odors of lysol, chloril
other drugs, would control offensive odors of leucorrheaJ
n toilets, bathrooms, and sinks, and would act as an et
drains and around the base of the bowl, would keep
tment and rest rooms, Turkish baths, etc., fresh and oa


the various receptacles


therein


odorless,


would


destroy


odors in gat


cans, would check the breeding of flies and vermin in garbage cans, w.o"
eliminate odors from outhouses (privies), catch basins, and ces#Oo
would prevent the breeding of all vermin, flies, and other insects in
around outhouses (privies), catch basins, and cesspools, would destroy a.
prevent musty and other obnoxious odors in cellars and musty rem;
would prevent the breeding of all vermin and all insects in cellars and must
rooms, would destroy and prevent odors from kennels, stables, manure pU
refuse heaps, and drains, would prevent the breeding of flies in kennels, stable
manure piles, refuse heaps, and drains, would completely clean the air R*E
destroy the odors of smoking rooms, billiard halls, shooting galleries, etc.. wb.t
destroy all odors whenever and wherever there may be one, would make
air fresh and odorless, would end cooking odors, tobacco odors, and all oid
hold odors; whereas the said article contained less than 8.56 per e t:.O
active ingredients and more than 91.44 per cent of inert ingredients, itf
not a disinfectant, and was not nonpoisonous and harmless, and the a .
when used as directed, would not be effective for the above purposes. .
On April 24, 1930, no claimant having appeared for the property, jd-
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the>
that the product-be destroyed by the United States marshal. i.




, 1* :E, ik" [
H :: ..: *.. : :.
* ^ r *
*OTIYES OF JUDGMENT
d


V-11900J


packages at Spring Valley, Ill., and that it was a misbran
the meaning of the insecticide ae of 1910.
[:!. t.. was alleged "In the libel that th_ article was misbranded
f$2owing statements on the label an4 in the accompanying boa
.....-OD Disinfectant and Deodorant .destroys offensive smell
..O-D 8 times more effint than Carbolic Acid
AiJ oious. Carbolic Acid ise.generally conceded stand
Number D-O-D chemically compared is more than three times ai
."- taen Internally by Drink or Douche with Safety. *


around


home.


('..!s D-O-D when sprayed in fine
I1i:Bf the air sweet and fresh.. Use
Illoil one gallon of warm water *
I *i..2 :.. : own," were false and misleading
I .. article was labeled and branded so
b"ihat the.article was not three times


77

ded fungicide

in that the
oklet, (label)
s," (booklet)
Yet is Non-
lard *
s efficient and
* Bad odors


ie surrounding air is often laden with
mist kills odors, has none of its own and
a solution of one teaspoonful of D-O-D
D-O-D kills all odors and has none
g; and by reason of the said statements
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
more efficient and effective than carbolic


it.;. it was not nonpoisonous, and when used as directed, it '
S.all1 offensive smells, would not kill all odors, would not disi]
H wel.id not make vitiated air sweet and fresh.
Ii :.:isbranding was alleged for the further reason that the
i artially of inert substances, to wit, substances other than p
.:~ ate, which said substances do not prevent, destroy, repel,
is "teria), and the name and percentage amount of each
Subtance present therein were not stated plainly and corre
a nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage amount
H:1 o" Ingredients of the article having fungicidal properties, a
(:. etage of the said inert substances, stated plainly and corrn
|Ht On June 3, 1930, no claimant having appeared for the prop
condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered
S.the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.


would not destroy
nfect the air, and

article consisted
otassium perman-
or mitigate fungi
and every inert


ctly
of t
nd i
ectly
erty
by


on
he
the
on
, ju
the


the label;
substances
total per-
the label.
dgment of
court that


ARTHUR M. HYDE, Seoretary of


AgrLoulture.


H i *
SH I HH H
:* .:*:: : .:::::.. X
* :., ,::. : **: *:
illi***: *
.. :
LH.
















INDEX TO


NOTICES OF ,JUDGMENT 1176-1190


Amerco dry insecticide: N
American Feed & Milling Co-
Beetle dust:
Sherwin-Wlliams Co----u.
Beetle Mort, Green Cross:
Lucas Kil-Tone Co.......--.-
Chloro-Crystals:
Eaudemort Laboratories... --
Ruglen, Rufus John__.. --.
D-O-D specific No. 3:
Smith, C. Nelson, Co ..-.--
Enz-Odr :
Republic Laboratories (Inc.)_
Germ killer, Dr. David Roberts:


Roberts.


David,


Voteri-


nary Co-__
Green Cross Beetle Mort:
Lucas Kl-Tone Co-..--.......
Nico-Tone:
Lucas Kil-Tone Co-.------
Insecticide, Amerco dry
American Feed & Milling Co_


. J. No.
S1187


1180
1181
1176
1176
1190


1188

1181

1177
1187


Kalosecta No. 2:


Reed, Carl,-_--_--..---
Reed, M. C... ._---.-.
... Reed, M. C., & Son---..........
Reed's:
S Reed, M. C-------------..


Kill-It:


South Jersey Chemical Co..
Lice and mite killer:
McDaniel, Fannie..._ __..
Nico-Tone, Green Cross:
Lucas Kil-Tone Co _..-__.,
Plantgard:
National Products (Inc.)....
Plantobac:
Uniform Products Co--.......
Reliance lice and mite killer:
McDaniel, Fannie ....__
Roberts, Dr. David, germ killer:
Roberts, Dr. David, Veteri-
nary Co .-......._.. -- --


Zobellne:
Zobel,


Ernst,


Coa __-_--- .


"'iii


::i:iiiitii:a:B


1


. "5-














-in.
~
iii.
iii Hi.

H11~


A>


..H. *
!rH.H.... 1.
I.1.*.

ii.

H
S.
iii.:
El. it


tii~i i,..
i..H ::..



iti:" "... :"!


a-....








V

I ~Ij
q I ::ijf..


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA





3 1262 06582 4711


H
1H HHq *


A
J4 I.

W~ h
HIIII.* .
*:.H.
.11.


HI.,,
H, ,,,,,
: .:* .