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:
AA00008549:00008

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text






.1
~di t..
H
H.
~s~;


tsaued July 14, 1932]


l ent


ADMINISTRATION


'.r.



111


Agriculture


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


tipn 4 of the insecticide act]
I


[culture,


Washington, D. C.]


.4



.1
* ...A.. *
H
I.
A.
*. *i~*


.. .. ^ing to state Inert Ingredients. In-
iN- they were harmful and poisonous to
.. .en.i Decree of condemnation and. de-
A~r lit)o. 168,)
EE.-1 : ale in the District of Columbia as herein-
*jpj45I'ges the label of which bore claims that
..H SStrties. The article was claimed to be
..pf. .' ... begs and pets. The label did not bear
:|i ptage.amount of each inert ingredient; nor,
.~.e nmnes and percentage amounts of each
M' rcentkrge of inert ingredients.
States attorney for the District of Columbia,
ejary of Agriculture, filed in the Supreme Court
s streett Court, a libel (which was subse-
..-set-e! and ondemnation of seven packages of
s' alleged in the libel as amended that the article
.sI sburgh & Bros., at their place of business in the
. "[was. there beihtoffered for sale, and that it was a
.thin the meaning: of the insecticide act of 1910.
the article was misbranded in that the statements
1e:to wit, "Harris Roach Tabs a Chemically Prepared
dlEj4m 4 Waterbugs! Guaranteed to free your
ftes mand Waterb fs in three weeks. A New
*. popular demand pn exterminator of waterbugs and
"teRoea thant insect life is on the increase even in
m. the old-fashioned contact or repellant powders and
bean discarbse or the principle that will guarantee
W....terbds mi ocheqs. Harmless to pets.
... ..S. ardin toach lTabs have a disagreeable
1" -ha~nada-n-ts ad1:twersRhnnliI 4shov ho awn?-


9 *1













and correctly on the label. ...:l. e package containing'l:
in lieu thereof, were the a-ci i.. rcentage gi ount of eachs:.
ingredie tof the i.- ".. ,.:.=..L .i
ingredient of the article fphat idal properties, and the .'
of the inert ingredients pr.se t H.. = article, stated plaily 1l.: ..
the label. '.. '" .' ..
On November Z,. .Washtato",.
answer deyll thb'utYs of the Ub"eL. Ii .. ...
the ease came on for* "i tre the court and evidence' wa n
both oral and documeMi i. by^t^overnment and claimant, and g:
on the law and facts were submitted .y counsel for the Governmen a n
claimant. On March .10, 191, judgment was entered finding t.e ." "
branded and ordering that it bhe condemned and destroyed. On. eApi
a motion for a flndl *,ty4 t WMp filed by: the clamnan.t. .
memorandum opinion was handed down by the court oh May.2, 9,i..i
ruling this motion: (Cot, J.) "Upon consideration of the libel, andi'I
evidence introduced on the hearing, the court has reached the foi3
conclusions:


"The article, known as Harris Roach Tabs, is an insecticide wt..I
meaning of the insecticide act of 1910, as alleged in paragraph.. o.t
"The evidence failed to sustain' the allegations of paragiraph 5 {
material is ineffective. The evidence on this point was conflicting .
respects, but there was material eWdence that, at least under somecM
the Roach Tabs ha-v royven, Atisfactory to many persons, inclui ., 1g
ment departments, who prefer .tem to the powdered. form .of mat.
reasonable effectiveness of which was not questioned. -.., ... ,.
".The evidence failed fo. sustain ,the allegations of paragraph 4 ju
Roach Tabs are harmful and poisonous to human beings antd pets.. ..
"The evidence sustains the allegations of paragraph 7 .An..that the
used thereon do not show, as required by law, the name gnd pereeq
each of the inert substances or .Ingredilent. present in the Roach ...q
in lieu thereof, the name and percentage .naount of the asunta,, .
Roach Tabs having insecticidal properties and the. total percntage "|
substances or ingredients present in such Roavp Tpbs," : .. ".:
The court being of the opinion that the proof.'of the anlegaflonsix
7 of the petition is sufficient to .sustain'the libel, hi' signed& .
condemnation under date of March 10, 1931. Filed now for tbe' t4
1931 for March 10, 1931. -.:.


t .
.'


. ARTHUR M. HYDE, Mecr0tary J


*
S "tb

*


- -
1
~ q ~
4 HE
I
V I ,~.
*s H1
A4~
A *H~ .H~i. ILIL :~AuI~
* ..:1~! : ~
Ar
H.
, ..V tWH~E H A
a
JOr .






Issued September, 1831.


4.


ates Department
* *" /. .


:j* :j* .H C Iii. r.,
tt a. ...
-.:
a I.
I ~

I


. -
-, ~
H.
~b.V;~9Pi
A"

2
*'I'A:.*
V


Agriculture


AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


THE


INSECTICIDE


i rsUi at to section 4 of the insecticide act]
,lpmrsuant to section 4 of the insecticide aet]


F

2


1206-1210


@S..THZ< Secretary of Agriculture,
fu-jh -" vh"-


Washington,


D. C.


, September 17, 1931]


Muag of Harris Roach Tabs. U. S. v. 7 Packages of Harris
Tabs. Tried to the court. Judgment for the Government.


S eerft of condemnation, fc
Dutlin f6r finding of fact Il
f3 4:Pi No. 1382. S. No. 168.)
lth~i Roach Tabs offered for
.* -bet forth Were contained in
1 article possessed insecticidal
partmnent failed to substant


irfelture, and destruction entered.


led


by claimant.


Motion


overruled.


sale in the District of Columbia as
packages the label of which bore claims
properties, which claims investigations
iate. The article also claimed to be


: l...and nonpoisonous to human beings and pets, whereas it contained
%! iubstan es, and it failed to bear a statement on the label of the name
.. Ige amount of each inert ingredient, or in lieu thereof a statement
1* ild percentage amounts o'f each active ingredient, and the total.
:II I bert ingredients as required by law.
!7,1B925, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia,
uIMKn. a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Supreme
ihI' d1dstr1kt aforesaid, holding a District Court, a libel (which was
bI amended) praying seizure and condemnation of seven packages
li:i!I'fl ]baeh T&bs. It was alleged in the libel as amended that the article
possessionn of Lansburgh & Bro., at their place of business in the District
Ullhbia .n4d was there .being offered for sale, and that it was misbranded
H .ii | ekd within the meaning of the insecticide act of 1910.
*1l. allegd.. that the articlee was misbranded in that the statements
..,.t sai:aartcle,* to wit, "Harris Roach Tabs- A Chemically Prepared
.. Roata..Ahe and Waterbigs. Guaranteed to free your
ilHtgh bf RA.ched abd Waterbugs in three weeks. A New
IH:SB, Ccread V.Y pular, .demand an exterminator of waterbugs and
SreDtg bavrerrted that insect life is on the increase even in the
'naeo .He' old-fashioned contact or repellant powders and
.. .ods.bavebeen discarded for the principle that will guarantee
.* .*
*e m nation f tereug and roaches. Harmless to pets.
on:: .l ono to humans and Pets. Roach Tabs have a disagreeable
w Wiiev their being eaten by children. Should they be swal-
.. .* -3 us results would follow," borne on the label affixed to
:.e ,.thbarticle, were false and misleading; and by reason
i!e ntt tlq Artiele was labeled so as to deceive and mislead
nv!!.:. sn' tramanf"d hc +h orl r-n -cd c fro


DGMENT UNDER


ACT











ingreaient 01 twe arucie naving. mseepciaa. propernes ana ae ra. .B..|
of the inert ingredients pre.a u.. t1e arttie, gte4 iPj. ny andS
the label :
On November 7, 1925, P. F. Hards, .Washington, D ., "..ed'de.at
answer denying the material allegations of the libel. On February 26 -i:
case came on for hegiug before the court and .evideye. wagn tl
oral and d&umentary,tby the GOdvenment and ctuimamt,.andMdgut
law and facts were submitted by counsel for both parties. On March1*..
Judgment was entered flnding- the product misbranded aMid "tderhing ..-.
condemned and destroyed. On April 8, 1931, a motion for a finding of ..t
filed by the claimant. The following memorandum opinion was handel 0.oi
by the court on May 2, 1931, in overruling this motion: (Cox, J,)"..
consideration of the libel, and of the evidence introduced on the heatinlga:,-
court has reached the following conclusions: .. .., .
"The article, known as Harris Roach Tabs, is an insecticide wttii
meaning of the insecticide act of 1910, as alleged in paragraph 4.ofthe..lt.lim
"The evidence failed to sustain the allegations of paragraph U8 bat. *'.1"
material is ineffective. The evidence on this point was copflictfl-- i bf
respects, but there was material evidence that, at least.under some.e tl
the Roach Tabs have proven satisfactory to many persons, including Go
departments, who prefer them to the powdered form of material, the r.
effectiveness of which was not questioned. ,. .. .,l.
"The evidence failed to sustain the allegations of paragraph .4 t..
Roach Tabs are harmful and poisonous to human beings and, pets. .. .. ...:..
"The evidence sustains the allegations of paragraph 7 in t. .th.,
used thereon do not show, as required by law, the name and percentage at
of the inert substances or ingredients present in the Roach Tabs,.,norI.i-..
thereof, the name and percentage amount of the substances. in such bas...aI ..it
having insecticidal properties and the total percentage of the inertst... o-..^i..
or ingredients present in such Roach Tabs." .. .,
The court being of the opinion that the proof of the allegations, of aa
7 of the petition is sufficient to sustain the libel, has signed theta de-
condemnation under date of March 10, 1931. Filed now for then this
1931 for March 10, 1931. .... ...
AfiTHU M. HYDE, Secretary of Agridos m.

1207. Misbrandinr of Margos bottled moth pt*eventative, Imaert nut tw
tive, and deodorizer. U. S. v. 76' Cartorn" of Mfmoats *fottl.4 .
Preventative, Inseet Preventative, and Deodorlzer Peto@lt si.
of condemnation, forfeiture, and. destrucnetion. (I. & 11'. .1.. ....
No. 2 18.) :
The article involved in the interstate shipments herein described waa:
posed of certain substances molded into bottle-shaped cakes the label. of .
bore statements representing that it would control and prevgft moths and.
insects, also that it would be effective as a deodorizer, whereas invest|
showed that it would not be effective for such purposes. '.
On August 25, 1930, the United States attorney for the Southern fri


California, acting upon a report by
District Court of the United States
seizure and condemnation of 75 cart
insect preventative, and deodorizer.


the Secretary of Agriculture,
for the district Atoresaid a If
ons of Margo's bottled moth 'l
It was alleged in the libel th1


..




N.H Kr:.. 5rL.
H
"''t ~ra *
iiLHL.~*., **
H~ I..


I: !".:*: '
S: **' :: El::.
X!!.,E...EE.. X :


'stid


*tli
I fact
I
~


a


a'
..i~a ~


~t. atas~
be desert*
(1:: :. I
ii'...,
I. ~c.


NOTICES OF


JUDGMENT


101


Insects, and all.vermin, and would prevent all insects in
f~tjary, etc., and would combat all undesirable odors;
dole would not be an effective control for moths, all
L, and would not prevent all insects in the home, office,
It would not combat all undesirable odors.
claimant having appeared for the property, judgment of
eiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that
ad by the United States marshal.
ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.


. Mfa gf Moth-t. V. S. v.
SXa IMAee of condemnation,
H .:H- *0al44. -- No. 237.)
iatn:tton of aS:article, sold as an ins
I'Hte Skipment Whrein described show
.:. md an aeomnpanying display cartd
Mul .." and .destroy moths and th
trie,.Vbtie against all other insect


18 Dozen Packages of Moth-It.
forfeiture, and destrwuction. (T. &


iecticide under the
ed that the packal
n, bore statements
eir larvae under a
pests, whereas it


name of Moth-It,
ge containing the
representing that
11 conditions, and
would not. The


l.it3 contained"an inert ingredient and failed to declare the said inert
g tn ts. required by law.
i|;.M28, 19381, ..:the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
nltnia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
.?Cokmrt of the United States for the district aforesaid a libel praying
. w -a :demnation of 18 dozen packages of Moth-It. It was alleged in
tt.l. that the article had been shipped by the Pacific Chemical Go., from
| At, N. Y., into the State of Pennsylvania, on or about March 24, 1931,
[i been so transported it remained in the original unbroken packages
1lphia- Pa., and that it was a misbranded insecticide within the mean-
...t'te insecticide act of 1910.
l A all.egd in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the state-
"i..t.. w't1 "Protection From Moths and Other Insect Pests, Kills Moths,
.fe'- '"Morths knd Their Larvae Moth-It Moth Insurance." borne on the


:E.... ". :"


. ..i.
: Men
H* '::*.: j i '
H *.ait


f.. carton, and the st
1i,- 'Ut two dr more
. give. best protection
A Their Eggs, and Oth
ftle, were false and
iztie Wa .labeled and b


atements, to wit, Kil
tablets for upholstered
when placed in closed
er Insect Pests," borne
misleading; and by rea
randed so as to deceive


Is Moths ai
furniture.
closets *
on the pacd
son of the E
and mislead


id Their Eggs
* These
* Destroys
:age containing
aid statements
the purchaser,


that they represented that


the article when used


l.l ^tt.w othsand their larvae under all conditions,
.I.itn moths under all conditions, would be effective ag
.-e dz. qi.. future, and would be effective against
i.t irtale when used as directed would not be
\iuidtheir larvae under'all conditions, would not insure p


. l fl-coaditions
o and would
bandig was
ia 0of an inert
! prevent, destroy,


as directed would be


would insure prot
;ainst moths that
all other insect
effective against
protection against


would not be effective against moths that infest up]
not be effective against all other insect pests.
alleged for the further reason that the article
Substance, td wit, sodium chloride, which substa
repel, or mitigate insects when used as directed,


(;and percentage amount of the
Hik* not stated plainly and correctly
ining .the said article; nor, in lieu
|f m: Mbhg imsecticidal properties, and the


inert


substance so


present


on the label affixed to the pa
thereof, were the name and
substances or ingredients of
total percentage of the inert


effec-
ection
infest
pests;
moths
moths


holstered

consisted
nce does
and the


therein


ckage con-
percentage
the article
substance


*~H.Hr


.. .


U


;


1







12


; *IENSEdflfflBfl 10? ,


,, ,,
* "
.!j


... t :' ... "* =.*. .: .. "..:'
: On. April 16, 1.931, the United States attefey fies. the: [fsttc*tiou4
:the United States for. the .dist.et; afwesaidt a. WibeLh.ayiw 0 pteAn ..
demnation: of 10 de*en cans of Parodant. It.was a llWged.int:tlhe Wli* i. ..
article ha4- been shipped by the George H. GarnetrC0o, from Alle tl* ..i,:i
on or about January: 80, 1931, : that.having :beemn '.itransported i*:i.i :
unsold in.the original unbroken packages. at Wilmington, DIM.t and1l latT l.tr
a misbranded insecticide and fungicide withinthe meaning of theA nast'.:
act of 1910. ,-. .: '. : : |* -. ...H* ...*.,..4.
Misbranding .f the,..article was alleged in the libel for the reason that:.'-.:j
............................................................... .J
statements regarding the article, borne on the can and display carton lab .. u|
namrply, (can) "Moths, Ants, Bugs, and Insect A .e Reppled W "
dank' Jas-,sed," ,(display carton). ". 'areadt., Repels, -. oi
Mosquitoes-Roaches-Bugs and other Insects. -* *. 'APatodant 18 to th,&
Air 'what Soap is to Dirt. Leaves The Air' Sweet,..Pure -and : oa4 a HAm H(MjI4
"Neutralizes offending 'odors ** Overcome offending ddomr aH it ::
homes, offices, schools, churches, hotels, institutions, factories, ,trains, ,tSwea ..
ships, etc. Bath Rooms require vigilant attention to guard against ei.baW .,d.:.
raising odors. Use Parodant' in toilet rooms, toilet urinals, bath rooni0 n ..;-|
rooms, closets, hallways, dining rooms. T* he:Home needs 'Partlft' h:is
Sprinkle on carpet, into closets, chests, drawers, mattresses. about.kitchcuu H :ii
bed rooms, cellar, attic, hall-ways, garbage cans, bed pans, omnmodeS cuiopj..i-
dors, outhouses,. etc., wherever unpleasant odors arise,"' (display .ccatto :'
"'Parodant' Keeps The Home Free From Odors That' Are Embarrasi. :"
* Overcomes Offending Odors," were false and misleading;; andx :r i
reason of the said statements the article was labeled and branded se deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that they represented that the narVee :.
when used as directed would repel moths, ants,. flies, mosquitoes, roaches, bu .
and other insects, would leave the air sweet, pure, and clean,' would nettflhtl .
offending odors, would keep the home free from all embarrassing odort,. .
would overcome all offending, embarrassing, unpleasant, odors in. the pla. :
named on the labels; whereas the article when used as directed would:mnt
repel moths, ants, flies, mosquitoes, roaches, bugs, and other insects, woull "d
not leave the air sweet, pure, and clean, would not neutralize offending odes, ..


would not keep the ho
overcome all offending,
on the said labels.
On June 30, 1931, no
of condemnation and fc
that the product be des


me free from
embarrassing,


all embarrassing
unpleasant odors


odors, and Would nut
in the places -naime
S' '- .-1


claimant having appeared for the property,
irfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by
troyed by the United States marshal.


judgmat
the .cout


ARTHvUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Ag"liotu? ..-I
*
1210. Misbrandlng of Star parasite remover. U. S. v. 86 Dosen nottliN .:it
Star Parasite Remover. Default decree of condemnatione .Se t.:
feature, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 1538. S. No. 2a1.) d. : .. .
Examination of Star parasite remover from the shipment herein descibd ..:
showed that the bottle label and accompanying circular bore statements.-repr
renting that the article was effective against certain insects and parasites that -
infest poultry, would improve the health and condition of poultry,. and be
valuable in certain diseases thereof; whereas the article consisted entirely of
inert substances, which when used as directed would not be effective for the
said purposes.
On April 1, 1931, the United States attorney, acting upon a report by the
Secretary of Agriculture, filed in.the .District Court of the United States fot :





E i" *. *. .*. ,,, *, ;T
.. .i.. : j .2. NOTICES OF JUDGMENT
i .. = .. .. ... ""
%..r :: "... % --.
'. ... If above direction are followed, we will refund money
$eo fails to keep :* Also it its use fails to improve
S.g production.. Especially valuable in cases
.: t....ea, etc.," borne oP the labels of the bottles containing the
statements, to wit, ar Parasite Remover It will
the of Intestinal wo s, keep them rid of lice, mites, fleas, red
.. ., Keep your ens hearty-and healthy during the
:. Beg pijy Pt p. t8*n1 S Praste Repover in
.water or ofee. j W oFt6ne upb'their system, make them eat he
1-tW ;disease and greatly" n.creases egg,. production through
;:tan:: n'w eb 'I e'. borne on a cardieirrular inclosed and s
..d: article, wee al and miseiad4igi; thd by reason of 'the
nr arttclE Waew9ia i1dg 46 as to decveh ndalea
.m nhat.thb 3ewaeum d that the.article when used as directed


live: against all
of worms that
bugs that infeo
the health and
in poultry and
would keep hei
make them eat
production thr


kinds of insects on fowls, would
Infest poultry and against lice,


st poultry,
I vitaJity,
be especi
is healthy
heartily,
ough the


would act as a
would prevent di
ally valuable in
during molting s
would prevent di
fall and winter:


tonic
sease,
cases
eason
sease,


be effective again
mites, fleas, red
for the system,
would improve
of colds, roup,
, would tone up
and would grea


whereas


the article


directed would not be effective for the said purposes.
.. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the
completely of inert substances or ingredients, namely, substa
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects when used as d
Same and percentage amount of each and every one of such
present in the article were not stated plainly and correctly on
- to the bottles.
On June 12, 1931, no claimant having appeared for the prop
condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered
the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.


AnBTiU M. HYDE, Secreotary of


103


if Star Parasite


health,
of cold
article,
*
bugs, bl
molting


vitality
s, roup,
and the
* free
ue bugs,
season.


, their drinking
artily. *
h, the f1ll and
whipped with the
saif statements
1 tie purchaser,
would be effec-
nst all varieties
bugs, and blue
would improve
egg production
diarrhoea, etc.,
the system and
tly increase egg
when used as

article consisted
ces that do not
*ected; and the
nert substances
the label amxed


erty, judgment of
by the court that


AgriouJture.











*;:~! t;:


I.


4.. Ii .~ t I.E *4.jLq;*.

I..I~rt


*
* I.


S a..

II


4"


H a~ I


II


* *j.


. r '


* ..kit
.1 ,.C '(,
\
*- CI *<


HI
I,,....
I H,
*.~
~ I *
H. IIIHI
~

I..-'


INDEX TO NOTICES OP JnM


!NT120O-latl.


Harris Roash T ua : N
liarza, P. _-.i..-......
lanpb.urgh & B1o----.--...-
Margo's bottled moth preventative,
imsect preventative, and deodorizer:
Margo Balee Co_- ..--.__


*g. No.

1206
1206


120?


Moth-It:
.Paeifie


ale miS?


aBnet George fl Co-L-..
lataute remover:
clame Bass Dasu C0oA


4.. S
S.
11
I rw ly.. II.!!!
II
H
I..'
ikYi~
a ~..* *:
*I. I....


It'


J...


* I "


-I
S


.. -~ r
S.
.ri*
ill jI,* Ir.v

...~ ;~


. H.


t:I
I ~ ItI.~


. t


* 1.*








** 4 1. *
A
*
'*1 a.
I 4
n.j.
I, ci
*
I.E.
V.. -I':'
.1 HI.

..H.
hi.
C ... -.
**1

I. -.
LII
.H.*I.
-~ *L1.**~.. .1.
... 4
,*R.lr*. I'.. *
I ~ ..*th .. 4.






h::, ~~IT
t. .
Pill :IFi;i .Lf;.



.1

I.
I.,
*
*h tS,~I..









II-.
F,....- *
I I LI%~


Vt~.&.<% 1,
. *:..rt
4

-.
*441 **%


1.1
I..
*
*
~

*0


















'I






~ r




II..

H.p.
hi:.

I: *

ft.




In:




Mi>:).
Is.
~I. ~


*1~

ii

4. %IVI
:": ~\

.-
!khi~. .i* *
~


.11.1
H. *
W*j
I..J
Ilk.... *
Sb..: I.
I
IV
4.



I.
*


1111.
**I*J.







H-.
x: !'.: "V ....
.a.." ., ..
" "" $
.H


I.
V.
,. .l~..
- .11

Hi.


I...
tr
*1 1~,UF.
- ...l


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA



11I I IIIIIIII I lII111M

3 1262 08582 4745


.
1*
.-Lh
I


4....
*L~.
t32
,-~t<, .
H.
H.
I.
i.H
*i.H