.*.fl.Hr. 'N.........IL 'I
I, Washington, D. C., January 6, 1931]
to the eouwrt.
U. 9. v. 683 Quarts, et al.,
Judament for elatmant.
l1mg ea4wiejs~mples of Lee's lice killer, intended for
ttoy liWce ad ohoer vermin of poultry and having reached
the aricue was u ble to accomplish certain results claimed
Swntarv ot Ag.culture reported the facts to the United
t W..stemn District of Mmissouri.
927 the aitd United States attorney filed in the District
I tafs aforesaid a libel praying seizure and condemnation
Sone-b-half-gallon. cans, and 15 gallon cans of Lee's lice
siInt the libel hat the article had been shipped by the
laiMb Nebr., in v. rious consignments on or about January
37, My 2, May July 1, and July 5, 1927, respectively,
Neb at ska Into th :State of Missouri; that having been so
.- n the orig d: unbroken packages at Kansas City, Mo.,
illt&ded inset ide within the mean ng of the insecticide
the article was misbranded in that the
intended principally for use about the
rid of mites also the various
hat habitually remain upon the chickens.
a half hour
Lice on Fowls. Apply
before chickens go to
killing body lice it lb
er and close up against
roost daily for a short
should be a 2 x 3 or
. on the label affixed to each of the cans
Ite statement, "Lee's Lice Killer. We
op with a picture of chickens, borne on
ad by reason of the said statements
*.8 to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
S 4...fA .used as directed, was not an
"Notwithstanding th&,aflegation :of the answ tt 't the:i*:Nt..
in the criminal case was: whether the insecticide there under e .
misbranded, obviously that was nottib= only issue raised by the .
pleadings were the information and the. plea of '."ot. guilty?-,. .
'not guilty' might have been based"on a .determination of other- :.
the question whether the particular quantity of insecticide involveiS. ..
was or was not misbranded. It might appearoft course, fwom I'ie...
if that were pleaded in the present answer that other possible q.
eould have been raised in the criminal case: vere 'elftlate..
for the defendant, but that record has not been pl ad. .;..'".
indicating such elimination of other issues., .It must clear" a .. ta
of res adjudicata in order that it may be good that fie ..il
previously determined.' '. .': .. :iM
S"But the most forceful reason for sustaiinig the motio to strike:
If there was but one issue actually involved in the criminal, tCtEa
was not as to whether any substance mage after the..formuila of L)G
was misbranded, but was as to whether the particular stiabtandei thfp.
quantity of that insecticide referred to .in the information ;ai .v:
shipped from Omaha to Salt Lake City was misbrandqd. .It does .
that because that issue was determined favorably to the dena.it .in |..
that a wholly different quantity of the same brand of insecticide .i +.
misbranded. It was not the formula which was on. trial in the ."ri'lnf4
It was a specific shipment. It was not the formula which Wtas aejde..
by the verdict in that case. At most it was that particular shipment wb'
so adjudged. ,
"The cases which are cited by the defendant min its brief are cart Xu
the identical thing was involved in the criminal and civil p.oedfm
case referred to as a leading case on. the subject is Coffey .V. .T.ii.9
116 U. S. 436. There, among other. things the defediat WS.a ::..r.
unlawful distillation of a certain quantity of brandy 4and wd.
The Government then attempted to confisceate the identiCal brandy qp.
that it had been unlawfully distilled by. the defendant... The .
held that the acquittal was res adjudicata of the fuestiO.n al .
brandy was unlawfully distilled and that, therefore, the c ,lYi:a
be maintained. That case, however, is not in .i.tint'.here,. .Ndr ti
to me that any of the other cases cited are more in point .+o ., ..
"An analogous case would be this: The GOv(ernment *ii.i ,.
to confiscate a certain quantity of alleged into6thIa*ig.'. lqidoi. "LU
that this liquor contains more than one-half ot .nie per jcet of nitdi b
and that it is possessed for beverage purp s.. It is a tradeam. E..
made in accordance with a certain formula. A defense. Q et res -
set up. In support of that it is alleged th .in a .criminal.' "' .
i **.*mag"i^ --ay nnm -p *t *.J SiA .S. L4F44g U hLUUALti LiL A i ULgU Alh U.L
............... '-Qw.rkt ,anu, 41 Halt-gallon cans, anuG 5 Gallon Cans, more or
.S T. .Kiter.. I is. alleged in the petition;--if it is. to be: called
g:geAfr eSs .iteaaot properly called a petition-that the Geo. H. Lee
-aturen qt 'eea ::lice killer, had made a shipment of the 63 quart
S'ta tr^h whieh ard the subject of this- libel, and that they were
bb..ed--misbranded under a violation of the law, and that they were
,iaaS :It gathered. it from 'the petition, in several particulars. It
l that there appears upon the label of the cans in question a statement
.iS& atiu L:ew .lice killer is intended principally for use about poultry
...ai-a. : stmiites and also the various form of feather lice and body
.i-:tbel. oa! chickens. It 1W alleged that those statements are false
..... ~~.. ,.and it.is.- also alleged that this statement appears on the
:)dU -.misleading.: 'For body lice on fowls apply Lee's Lice Killer lib-
... tothe roosts a. half hour before chickens go to roost at night to get a
1aporating surface. For killing body lice it is necessary to arrange a
SM14 inch board directly under and close up against the roost. Apply Lee's
h*ifler to. both board and roost daily for a short time, then once a month
.y/, ",and then giving the dimensions for the roost. Then it is further
PU that in connection with the picture that appears upon the can there
te.tstatement that '.Lee's Lice Killer-We. are Free from Lice.' And it is
that that is false and misleading statement.
thare the statements which i.t is alleged are false and misleading-
Ftentswappearing upon the label or as a part of the label upon the can
,Rhe burden of proof is upon the Government to establish by the greater
S .o..preponderance of the credible testimony in the case that those
ents appearing upon the labels-and while I have not looked at
iibit, I assume that the statements do appear upon the label-the burden
.,ois al the Government to prove that they are false and misleading.
I^I .le Government has not sustained that burden. I see nothing
fa. any of those statements alleged to be false and misleading, which
c ..construed as a guaranty of absolute efficiency, that it is a perfect and
.pt remedy. And yet all that has been proved by the Government is that
imtests. Were made-and only two were made-the remedy was not com-
tul.. effective. It only succeeded in ridding the fowls of from 50 to 75 per
at f the lice With which they were infested. It would seem to me-although
mw nothing about ehickens---they are very desirable under certain circum-
S.When properly prepared-it would seem to me that the remedy which
ia..plications disposed of 50 or 75 per cent of the lice, is certainly not en-
Ii nuenles, and not entirely without effectiveness; but it would seem to be
Sectivb. And apparently from the testimony and from the statements
on the labels referred to ip the petition, the experiments referred to
e t.timony did not conform in all respects to the instructions which were
I. ..lowed in applying this rent"dy. That is to say, the instructions re-
,th.".,attle remedy shall be applied.monthly, and the remedy in these ex-
itlf' d not bd
lied on two ccasions over a period of several days. If
other than thp testimony introduced by the Government,
justified in ending that it had been proved that state-
court: "May I say this to your aso hat i -notM
When Mr. Crane and Mr. Qaines etam me, at tth e I
from the department, theymured int.y were not going to
on the facts, and that all the Go( rnm t needed to do was to stat
facie case and that it would not be *abbntted; that they were
wholly upon the introduction of prooe f f es judicata; and for tati
Government followed the agreement and only had toe wit-e-s rt-
' If you will bring one witness who may this product will not dtw *
it will do, we will not contest that proposition,'" to which stta xi''
responded: "Of course, I know nothing about any previous privatt.......
ing between counsel. I must decide the case upon what is presatS4iI*
On November 20, 1928, a decree was entered by the court ordoerj
case be dismissed and the product returned to the claimant. r : jy
ASrnvm i. Hnr, Heretwry of AW0S
1192. Alleged misbrandlIng of Lee's lice killer. U. S. v. S 'ffiD ts:
Sise, et al., of Lee's Liee Killer. Tried to the Distriet Court. :
ment for the Government. Appeal to Circuit Court of .A -
Reversed. (I. & F. No. 1455. S. No. 179.) .
This department having examined samples of Lee's lice killer, intended
use to control and destroy lice and other vermin on poultry, and having.
the conclusion that the article was unable to accomplish certain of the'
claimed in the label, the Secretary of Agriculture reported the facts to
United States attorney for the Southern District of California. -H
On.August 30, 1927, the said United States attorney filed in the District
of the United States for the district aforesaid a libel and on Spptemnl.. H.
an amended libel praying seizure and condemnation of 605A dozen qua.
639 dozen half-gallon-sized, 6411 dozen gallon-sized and 3% dozen 5 a 1..
cans of Lee's lice killer. It was alleged in the libel as amended that the ...
had been shipped by the Geo. H. Lee Co., Omaha, Nebr., in part on at
June 26, 1926, and in part on or about february 21, 1927, from Nebrat
the State of California, that having been so transported it remained
original unbroken packages at Los Angeles, Calif., and that it W* t
branded insecticide within the meaning of the insecticide act of 1910.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the libel as amended for/tit
son that the following statements, "Lee's Lice Killer is intended
for use about the poultry house, for chickens, keeping rid of mites -
also the various forms of feather lice and body lice that habitually re
upon the chickens. See other part of this label for directions. For Beogq
on Fowls-Apply Lee's Lice Killer liberally to the roosts a half how 1|
chickens go to roost at night, to get a wide evaporating surface for killitg
lice it is necessary to arrange a 12 or 14 inch board directly under sil
up against the roost. Apply Lee's Lice Killer to both boards and. toa
for a short time, then once a month regularly. Thu roost itself, shoilu
2 x 3 or 2 x 4 with top edge, rounded," borne on the labels affi to t
containing the article, together with the statement, "Lee's LIce\ |
nra froa frnm lion nw l in pnnnetMinn with sn nirtnrp of hmdrlensli.
a "J"". ".. ..ii. "." .. i. .. :.. |,. .
..9. e e: n for ti.
"..o :. o ..Qthe overnment and
Irl *c= .u -conneL..... eoctt.: anoutieed that
." ....*. ** : .".i* "" ... : s .
f .BW .^ r ..^ *i ". V 4* ...: "." r, .* K i r
,a r'd was entered by t*e court in favor of the
."..". the99 court retuxued as its conclusions of
#i;:ntsb;nded that it was .abject to condemnation,
and, tat the proceeding was not barred by the
[D .atrict.df Missouri. Judgment was entered ordering
i.i destroyed by the United States marshal.
t perfected a4 appeal, the case came on before the
Court of Apeals .for the Ninth Circuit .on bill of
... .ut of errors. | On June 9, 1980, the Circuit Court of
th"s 'following opinion reversing the judgment of the
..p ty years the appellant, Geo. H. Lee Co., has been and
.| ith manufacture of a preparation known as Lee's lice
|'w.t...b the representation that it will destroy poultry lice.
it shipped on consignmentt certain cans of the preparation
lace of business At Omaha. Nebr., to the Germain Seed &
bAngeles, Calif. Upon the assumption that the cans were
suait was commenced, in September, 1927, for their forfeiture
rovisioDs of sections 8 and 10 of the insecticide act of 1910
7 U. S. C. A, 49, 50, 52), and the cans were seized by' the
.* marphial. Responding to process, the appellant, as owner,
t after much delay, the reasons for which are not disclosed, issue
Febary 5, 1929, upon the filing by it of a supplemental and
p.er to.an amended, libel. In this pleading it admitted the ship-
Liaverments of the libel other than those charging that the brands
f"ale and misl
Gbly7 stopped by
S.i. erts in its
| ...of Missouri,
.ie in the case..
leading. Affirmatively it set up that the libelant
reason of a similar proceeding culminating in a
favor in the United States District Court for the
on November 20, 1928; and thus is presented the
The facts are not in dispute and may be stated,
Is a.the language of the findings, as follows:
.bb tothe 27th day of August, 1927, a libel was filed in the District
U*.4.ted States in the WIstern District of Missouri by the United
ltjMt: quart cans, 41 half-gallon cans, and 15 gallon cans, more or
i, .ide. killer, wherein th charge was made that said Lee's lice
.i labeling thereof, was. misbranded within the meaning of the
Sat ..of 1910. The appellat herein entered an answer in response
;tt triall was had thereon to the merits in the month of November,
t "i n a decree in favor of appellant herein. In that case, as here,
S...d. ..the shipments asd sales and labeling and the only issue
Ued .therein was whether o0 not the preparation known as Lee's lice
abis.br.anded. 'The labels the cans in that case bore statements,
id .dfe in. the same maner and form as those on the cans involved
.:ad- the pre ration or inmeticide involved therein was manu-
..i... dte. eicg l fo nla as the preparation herein involved,
: ans itmiE ng Lee's .ce killer, including the cans seized and
.:tatthitts aetiMltntained. sa DreDaration known as Lee's lice killer.
have been established, which is to secure the peace and ..W
the settlement of matters capable' f :tadidal determination. Its.
is essential to the maintenance of social order; for the aid o ju W
would not be invoked for the vindication of rights of person
If, as between parties and their privies, conclusiveness did no& .ta.
ments of such tribunals in respect if all matters properly pitt t'll.
actually determined by them.'" I i ,- :: T!!
"Manifestly the purpose of this principle or rule would be fstriht
view for which the'Government contends were to be sustained~' .4*
eminent is not boind by an adverse judgment neither is the ap ln
without modifying its formula or changing its labels it could, n6twft
the decree herein, ship its preparation into other territory, and indc
same territory, with the hope of a more favorable result elsewhere or
should the Government bring other libels. And instead of peace. ai
of society' the result would be chaos and endless turmoil. By appe
is had on United States '. Stone & Downer Co. 274 U1: S. 225. Bt|
Was there reviewing a judgment of the Court of Customs Appal t
Jurisdiction in a special field of litigation quasi administrative, .af.t'w
cordingly held not only that the Customs. Court was within the 'e
the power conferred upon it by Congress in declining, because of teii
character of the controversies coming before it, to recognize the~.
adjudicata, but that such recognition would. be unwise. We Slnd.Itt...W
between that case and this and in it no warrant for exten.dit," t: a.
class of litigation, a ruling limited in its reasoning to a new and diatiit
Nor is it thought that anything we said. in Ay cock v; O'Brien, 28 Wi..:!:|"
lends support to appellee's contention. fleverd.';" .
ATRUR ,i H a, ,ecretae ?t.r9
S i .i
1138. MJibrandlng of Apex moth eake. U. S. v. 2 Gross F.. ".
Moth Cake. Default decree of condemnatfo, to"tef.tt S:i
struetion. (I. & F. No 1511. & No. 198.) .. --! .. :
Samples of a product known as Apex moth cake, having best t
labeled with certain claims relative to its effickcy in the contrOl, me
and destruction of moths, which it was incapable of fulfilling, .th& gi
of Agriculture reported the matter to the United' States attoit2..
Southern District Of California. : ;.
pated replace at once wit a new Apex Moth cake Part!-
I fEr.Se*thea closets, laterr, chests, trunks, drawers, etc. *
Qake nSb your clothes and home of moths," borne on the label
|puuc~es ot the article, were false and misleading, and by reason of
&tents the article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and
Ipuvauer, since the said article, when used as directed, would
ftevte control for mdfhs in large closets or rooms, would not kill
i of moth life, would not purify, would not be an effective
rot:in all clothes closets and lockers, and would not be an
|lth 'cztbe under .all conditions.
4.ae2W0Bo ho claimant having appeared for the property, judgment of
aed y forfeiture was entered, and irat was ordered by the court that
.be destroyed by the United States marshal.
ARTHUR M. HYDE, Becretary of Agriculture.
ilratiton at. miabrandi ag of dry powdered
Y-*. 55 drum., et al., of Dry Powdered Arsen
d Seeree of condemnation, forfeiture, and
Se.d S. No. 211.)
*of the dry powdered arsenate of calcium front
ft & Virginia.
IAtb,, 1930, the
P'tted States f
t. o of 55 drums
'' -f calcium.
aon or about
itld and mi
arsenate of calcium.
ate of Calcium. De-
destruetton. (I. & F.
i the herein-described
seizure and con-
of dry powdered
article had been
nto the State of
transported it re-
and that it was
E.k alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that the
ibts, to wit, (drums) "70% Active Ingredients: Calcium Arsenate, 30%
laralients. Total Arsenic (expressed as percentum of Metallic Arsenic)
j.j.wn: 26.1%;. equivalent to 40% Arsenic Oxide," and (bags) "Active
Eht ? OCalcium Arsenate 70%, Inert Ingredients 30%, Total Arsenic (ex-
.as percentum of. Metallic Arsenic) not less than 26.1%; equivalent to
e Oxide," borne on the labels affixed to the drums and bags con-
th.ei article represented that its standard and quality were such that
u calCiumn arsenate in the proportion of not less than 70 per cent,
.... total arsenic, expressed as percentum of metallic arsenic, in the
ifon of not legs than 26.1 per cent, contained arsenic oxide in the pro-
* A Iot less than 40 per cent, and contained inert ingredients, namely,
Sthfat do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects, in the pro-
.h. bo:t more than 30 per cent, whereas the strength and purity of the
I, Below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold,
jT 4 cantined less calcium arsenate, less arsenic, expressed as percentum
having been found to contain less calcium arsenate and
than represented on the label, the Secretary of Agri-
facts to the United States attorney for the Eastern
United States attorney filed in the District Court
district aforesaid a libel praying
eight hundred fifty 4-pound bags
It was alleged in the libel that the
rin-Williams Co., Bound Brook, N. J., i
January 25, 1930, that having been so t
1 unbroken packages at Richmond, Va.,
branded insecticide within the meaning of the insecticide
neseance wm e meaning or me wecauae ar. or LiA "
It was alleged in the-libel totthb'b. ,.e wak-kZ rded 1*
ments, to wit, "To eliminate all insect teat ..E-sits
It was alleploei the* liel thath orle
inch square of the Parafgme. .A block. plae ias- "orjo.
materials from moths. Placed over w....t .dor will".. ,I.
entering because the heavy gas fumes:,:forfi..'. ptetive scrser".]
use place several blocks on the floor 'of the room infested and no .~ :.
with which vermin disappear. Placed ei:n piano, will prevent ...
from attacking felts. As "a bathroom deodorant a bl *
favorite scent secretes a fragrance and removes, unpleasant.oidet
the label, affixed to each of the blocks of the article, anud thei.
wit, "Parafume kills moths, mosquitoes, flies, roaches, ats, and o
* Clears rooms of smoke and bad odors," borne on the carto..
ing the article, were false and misleading, .and by reason of uaid t..
the said article was labeled so as to :deceive and mislead the ..patli
that they represented that the said article, when used as di:.
eliminate all insects, would protect all materials from moths, wourl
insects from entering a room, and drive all vermin from the kMth#.
prevent moths from attacking felt in the piano, would kill moths,
flies, roaches, ants, and other insects, and would remove all unpleaaw;
from the bathroom and would clear rooms of smoke and all b4:.
whereas the said article, when used .as directed, would not be ef
the above purposes. ..- ,...
On June 26, 1930, no claimant having appeared for the property ju.
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered b. 4
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal. r.i:
AflnU M. HYnr, Secretary of
1196. MIubrandln. and alleged adulteration of Mae'Gremims ant "
v. 16 Cana, et al., of MaeGreoer's Ant Pood. Prodets
branded. Default decree of condemmation, forfeftare, ... ..
tion. (I. & F. No. 1527. 8. No. 213.) .
Samples of MacGregor's ant food.having been found to bear t he.
certain claims regarding its insecticidal properties which it was tirnuI
fill, and a portion having been found to contain less borax and ore St
than declared on the labels, the Secretary of Agrikulture reporter te... ."
the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsy.vaii "..
On August 13, 1980, the said United States attorney filed i'. .1.'
Court of the United States for the district aroresaid a libel prnw .
condemnation of sixteen 1-pound cans and eleven 5-pound cans: o. M
ant food. It was alleged in the libel that the article had been u "i
fwlnnrrnw.O nin ..en vn..a 2J. A., 4- "11flnn S f. f.. Th- ninu a... *Ik T S... II.*l.4-a..n I .
.. .* .i.E
"" M. : :.. **: .: *:^. ..:: J4.U J H .*B^ U. r .: ...Jx Jj~i -
; r-$ti ..:.proao nf .n i ore than 90 per. ent..; whereas its
....t! .l. below: tantd and quality under. which it was
WirioutaIned less thsr. per cent of borax and more than 90 per
.* t r^... .
..... .. ": : ....
...... theportioni contihed ir the 1-pound cans was alleged for the
Sthe kabove-quoted sata*nts borne on the can labels were false and
bbyreanson of the sd statements the article was labeled so as
re. aS 'itslead the p.pureh r, in that they represented that the said
ntal ned not less than 8 fer cent of borax and not more than 90 per
tI neltter;: whereas it contained less than 8 per cent of borax and
*90 per cent of inert matter.
IgdMg was alleged with respect to both lots of the article for the reason
festftments: ." MacGregor's Ant Food An Amazing Discovery
A ts, ock Roaches, Woodlice, Snails and certain other Insects
tions. Dust the Food freely about the places where the Ants,
., ().. For use on Golf courses: Dust Ant Food lightly over
..jteggeens. (b) For Garden use: Dust over the surface of the
nts. (.) For Greenhouse use: Dust on the soil in the benches
benchess" borne on the labels affixed to the cans containing the
Vs1 false andY misleading, and by reason of the said statements the
la Ibeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that they
ted that the said article, when used as directed, would be an effective
4 apti, cockroaches, wood lice and snails; whereas it would not
ttefmber 15, 1960, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg-
t entered finding the product misbranded, and it was ordered by the
the said product be condemned, forfeited, and
ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of
flerstipn and misbranding of Jersey dry mix and sulphur lead
-Ut. U. S.v. Henry A. Bester, jr., and J. Alvey Long (Hagrerstown
.... y lMaterial Co.). Pleas of guilty. Fine, $75 and costs. (I. & F.
.,. 1500. Dom. Nos. 03388, 03389, 03390.)
ti Dwas made by this department of samples of Jersey dry mix
-. lead dust, intended for use in the control of insects and certain
..Wh showed that they contained substances which had no value for
Ias and which were not declared on the labels. The Jersey dry mix was
.to Contain less sulphur than labeled and the sulphur lead dust was
Mttein less sulphur and less lead arsenate than labeled. The labels
s .ulphur lead dust failed to bear a statement of the total amount
IH expressed as per centum of metallic arsenic, and of arsenic in
le form, expressed as per centum
of (metallic arsenic,
a afl =e~ -- W 5 S S
ne .--e S S
., tr 15, 1mu, the united states attorney tor mte istricr or
.....acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
T"h*t of the United States for the district aforesaid an information
....rmy A. Bester, Jr., and J. Alvey Long, trading as the Hagerstown
E.ite.rial Co., alleging shipment by said defendants in violation of the
.hiet of 1910, on or about May 16 and June 19, 1928, from the State
ah.E Into the State of West Virginia of quantities of the said Jersey
SN.E M phur lead dust, which were adulterated and misbranded.
Alleged in the information that the articles were adulterated in
temts "Accurate Percentage Thoroughly Mixed 64% 'Superfine'
l'.% Ohem. Hydrated Lime 4% Casein Spreader," with respect to
.ll.iay mix, and "Accurate Percentage Thoroughly Mixed 85% 'Super-
..Iand 15% Arsenate of .Lead," with respect to the said sulphur
of arseic in water-soluble fr, ee aso per cuitum pm
was not stated on the: label. > :-" '.: -:. 'i 1 ..
Misbranding was alleged for the fuTr reason that the ".
partially of inert substances, namely, a.s .tanes that do not pr
repel, or mitigate insects or fungi, and ie names and percent
each and every one of the said inert stiBtanees so present thSf RIf
stated plainly and correctly on the tags arlxed to the sacks edu
said articles; nor, in lieu thereof, were the nimes:: and percentage: t
each and every substance or ingredient of the article having inset
fungicidal properties, and the total percentage of the inert substane
gredients so present therein, stated plainly azid correctly on thoI
On September, 15, 1980, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to :he
tion. and the court imposed a fine of $75 and costs. ".
Arrtxx M. HYn, Becretory of
1198. Adulteration and mlhbranding of Beetle Mo
Beetle Mort. Product adjudged adulterate
ordered released under bond, (I. & F. No. li
An examination of samples of a product labeled
for use in the control of insects, having shown that
water-soluble arsenic (expressed as metallic) than
that it would be injurious to certain vegetation w
Secretary of Agriculture reported the matter to th
for the Eastern District of South Carolina.
r4. V. .* T. a
d and mnlisbrAM
523. S. No. 210,.fy*:.
"Beetle Mort'" -
he article contained
declared on the laj
en used, as di. "I
,, :: .. ":
On May 17, 1930, the said United States attorney filed in the Disb
of the United States for the district aforesaid, a libel praying s
condemnation of 20 cases of Beetle Mort. It was alleged in the libf
article had been shipped on or about March 14, 1930, by the Luc%
Co., Vineland, N. J., from the State of New Jersey into the Statet
Carolina, that having been so transported it remained in the origIxa1
packages at Charleston, S. C., and that it was an adulterated and l
insecticide, other than Paris green and lead arsenate, within the ms
the insecticide act of 1910.
It was alleged in the libel that the article
intended for use on vegetation, and when
directed by the label it would be injurious to
Misbranding was alleged for the reason tha
Arsenic (expressed as Metallic) not more
antees the material sold to be true to label,
the label affixed
leading, and by
branded so as to
that the article c
proportion of not
and that it could
was adulterated in thpa
used on certain .vegeta
the foliage thereof. H:
t the statements Water
than 1.00%. The $l1u
if labeled. For .kil.mi
. To be applied as a dust .for,..
ions for use against most leaf-eating ingewt
U Use six to eight pounds per a&eren
packages containing the article, were falte.
of the said statements the article was Iahe...l
Sand mislead the purchaser, in that they ri
d water-soluble arsenic (expressed as meta "c
han 1 per cent, that the said article was.trary
I safely on the folinas of melons: where ..saM
.d.. In ,M the libel that the article haid been shipped on or
.. ..T:.T B..:.. & Chemical Corporation, from.New York, N. Y4.
c ol.tbia, and having been so shi)ped it.remained unsold
iw ij".j" packages at Washington, D. (3., and that it was a
.....Witwthin the meaning of the insecticide act of 1910.
In.e libel that the article was misbranded in that the state-
e q suecticide Banem For use in closets, trunks,
1 ho4 qinscribed square, place disk wherever protection is
fumess are desired, cut opening larger," borne on the label
..ekap containing the article, were false and misleading, and
e said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and
H lzliu, in that they represented that the said article, when used
fir..would be effective as an insecticide under all the conditions indi-
e said label; whereas the article, when used as directed, would not
eas an insecticide under all the conditions indicated on the label.
B was alleged for the further reason that the following statements,
iBanem Kills! Moths-Flies Mosquitoes Roaches-Bugs, etc. A
.a.todorant and Effective Insensate for insects. Contains Paradi-
edfr-Appproved by the Bureau of Entomology and the Department
Dtre, U. S. A.," borne on the display card accompanying the article,
eand misleading, and by reason of the said statements the article
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that they represented
1fld1 article, when used as directed, would be an effective control for
3S" mosquitoes, roaches, bugs, and all other insects, and that paradi-
E had been approved by the Bureau of Entomology of this depart-
effective control for moths, flies, mosquitoes, roaches, bugs, and all
;:;r whereas the article, when used as directed, would not be an
p ol for moths, flies, mosquitoes, roaches, bugs, and all other in-
paradichlorobenzene had not been approved by the Bureau of En-
of this department as an effective control for moths, under the
pfindicated in the labeling, and had not been approved as an effective
-rflies, mosquitoes, roaches, bugs, and all other insects.
bnmber 17, 1930, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg-
t condemnation was entered, and it was ordered by the court that the
Sbe destroyed by the United States marshal.
AnaTmu M. HYDE, Secretary of
1| Smelag of Pe.M-B moth paddles. U. S. v. 1 Grouu Pest-Go Moth
Ss. Default decree o0 condemnatoiom forfeiture, and destme-
I uusl. (I. & F. No. 1525. 8. No. 214.)
puldation of samples of Pest-Go moth paddles from the herein-described
H1W: shipment having shown that the product was not effective to control
1rn all insects and was not a disinfectant, the Secretary of Agriculture
the matter to the United States attorney for the District of Oregon.
.bout July 8, 1990, the said United States attorney filed in the District
its actinty ror monns W*' U lt. Out to.e MefRl W....
To the Dealer: Keep this c.rtA i 'ee .ter customers Ca 0- st
want this new and eonvea ent methtusap ending a cobtahti.
borne on the carton contdiing the'q .: were false an
by reason of the said statement te a ... was labeled, so a to*
mislead the purchaser, in that they rey eted that said at.
as directed, would be an effective contr for moths, would be .a.n..@
trol for all insects and for moths unvei all conditions, and that t
was a disinfectant; whereas the said article, when used as direettd i
be an effective control for moths, would not be an effective cat
insects and for moths under all conditions, and was not a
On August 14, 1930, no claimant having appeared for the property.
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered b!
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal .'
ARTHUa M. HnM, Becretary of Apt
S S... ..HII
*X* X::" .."
* -... ~
** .: ::pI m
--. *: 4 *j
*f "": ii. HIIS?
131 N. J. No.
SLaboratories (Inc.)--..... 1193
'tB Chemical Corporation.. 1199
IMes KU-Tone Co.....--....- 1198
k ry powdered arsenate:
..erwi--Williams Co......... 1194
,A B Chemical Corporation.. 1199
A...... ______ _
J A -__ --- __- -- --
N. J. No.
Lee's lice killer:
Lee, Geo. H., Co-----........ 1191
MacGregor's ant food :
MacGregor's Salairacine & Ant
Crystal Products Co
-Go moth paddles:
Sulphur lead dust:
Bester, EL. A- ___-__
Hagerstown Spray Material
Co ........ .--.. ...
*' .H ::,,,
H .1... H H
S.. :. *.
H H 'III
':: "u ""g!
..** ..... ..
H H ..
H H..: **
= ..j .j .... -
.. ** ***.
... .. s.. '..
..:: ..*** **. ..
: .. :. .. .
** ** *:
: ...::x :.:..
":::'i : N'E
:xq I H* HI
.. .. m:..
.. .. ... ...:
... .*. .
*.. .. !. ..
.. = .. .. .
.4 HI... :: ..
"* H *.. L
:.:.....:*.. .: "....
9 jx: :*- a:::
: ..:.. : .
:....:::.... : :: *.
~~: :-*i .
.." ::'H:' i .
::4::, HH H : H H
:::4: :" H lH 'I"
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
11IliinIlIlI H IIl lilm iIIIInIIII
3 1262 08582 4729
*1 HR dl.
IA. ;.,*. .H,~$j
p. tin Ii.
a ii;., 0