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:
AA00008549:00012

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text





.,* 4.*.:* *. of Agriculture
...... :* ......* *. **. **. :*4 ** *'"
.... ..... *...:: ..:4."
.:*H::N: ** .:. :** : ** l:4
H... .. 2. ."






S."..... FOOD AN 4G ADMINISTRATION |
"d,:,,..:4 :4,::: .,,,.:4:4 ': :4 + "4 :4 .... "
." i li'" *. EE : ..:*:...' H.::
i..i .......:.... "


...tll.H l. ... ......N. .. H..








OF r OGEN UNDER THE INSECTICIDE ACT
:"*E:: .::"... ** *:.: ... u
....i: *. S.y o Ar W eml er 1.







.Bi i'^i~:/:* *:: *
*i:f of: A.a* .:**. i: a T S .. P4t





* l *ju -H V. *=
.. .:*:li li i i d i.. .. ."
...".. .. ....**."....:. .









!HH. Otoearetain naculuraestherin.D The -.Ne 1ip 1982
Ii: .iio"Hi i.. "o' Hwii. .e b n a I w
..i i4. .. : ... i.il i l l i













l|i,~e^ of Abe efectivepto eeteskn andma coats. B A ofN Pranimas
ie|d o ....... a. ...ti....e for s i......... 41trobed se
H. as o..rtai ire he.eAN.si.....n




















:::" ti| rangee Exa"mination showed that the article would not be elective
.g|l s" a=:earesented; that the cans containing the article were short of
..l'. olum.e;-an.d that the inert ingredients, i. e., ingredients ineffective
....4..i..:e4es for which the article was intended, were not declared on
"i.'|. E.. ".. ......red. by law and in the manner prescribed.
.. ...-Re- Unitd State attorny for.th.Distrit.of.Ne.Jersey

















... .... the Secretary of Agriculture, f4led in the District Court
E* "i h**" **.. ates for the district aforesaid an information against the All-
f ::4"4." ....... corporation, trading at Camden, N. J., alleging shipment by
|il.||a|n|J ne 4, 1931, from the State of New Jersey into the State
^^.t.slfl Of a. quantity of All-Nu antiseptic animal soap, which was a
Mli^ isecticide and fungicide within the meaning of the insecticide act of
....:*....** *. :4 ...**: : .. .




i :: 4:. H, I .. .
















Qof the article was alleged in the information for the reason
,i:4 "Antiseptic Animal Soap All-Nu Antiseptic Ani-
11. TheQ Antiseptic Properties in this Soap All-Nu
Sp i Especially Prepared for Keeping the kin and Coat
















":..**-* free from -Vermin and in a Healthy Condi-
S*:.* 't-e Artiseptic Properties in this "oap are a Preventative for
















... Pl:ea Ecfema or Mange.& borne on the label of the cans con-
ee...........,We false and misleading; and by reason of the said state-















was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the
t... represented that the article was antiseptic, that when














h te tobcld keep the skins and coats of animals free from all
.. :4 .. i. I i. R I i."i.. :4 n. ... ".


























.14~u healthy condition, and would act as a preventive for all skin
man and miangei ; whereas the said article was not antiseptic,
res.. ..ted It would not keep the skins and coats of animals free
S4ien an healthy condition, and would not act as a preventive















.pnspsseuh as ehemt and mange. disbrandinw was alleged for
I at Ute q Santity of the contents of the cans was not stated
a r"co" ..tintrd"igaCm de...," a l .eig"h .ipmen.t. "y
on u.e4,193,.romth State of.New Jerey into theAStat

,~ ii"": ..t....adfnicd.iti.h.maigofteinetcdeato

hi~~... Th.Atsetc.roetisintisSop*..I1N
A.rna..op.s.spcaly.reard.orKepngth.Sinan.Ca
kAV.~~~ ,,.4..I I....e.fo-.em.. a d in a He lh C n i
:4: ..... AnispicPoprte ihi Sa.aea.reetaie.o
N'...... ..:.

H .H....... keptskn n.caso niafeefo.l
......o.ditto
.....x..an.wul ac.a apreeniv fo.al.ki
wet.e...nd..ig;.whre..th.sidarice.asno.atiepic
ir td.t.oud.otkep.hesin.ad.oas.f.nial.fe
mun eaty odtin adwol.ntat.sa.rvetv

++that e' thers tantity eion th oftheintseofthcie anewsto]sae

-,, ,- -, A -"- "- -"






















!i ":4":4'....<.:4:. +...,.... t]iag. ,.+.. i e. ,_. q anflt .. of the._ contents .f_ the. cans,, _was. _nt_ stated..


















- ma 'U
* i | f


H V.

:L. ~.. *1i
:i.
H

H



H. -.
p ..


.xl
. ... *


raw H a
H

1* 4**::::. ..






H. ,
~. .~aa9~tt*:r.. I


1.-


41i H
A IE -." f &
V.:.^ lf


M


.mE'
H



:1

..rHu




w ~ V.






















'*1 If 1L~H, S


























4
H.



A.





a

*


S.




I..


t .
*


4..






4



I

?, .i*


4


A




I
S.




I:.



H...

I.






A..





H:
~1~~!l


1' :4
I
t




H
I


A

.1 ~


.4


4.11
I


E: m-


..nummesumme









.........il^ o A ft,'
i.. .. **
*** g .g : ** .. ...*. ,
:*. ... .. .
:A** *:...":* u *:i... ..*** *: :.* ::. ...
S. ... I.
: : ..I
1:.... ':iS J'' ./ .. *
... A: X" :: ..
*; xi!! 45fi: iMi:c~id n
... .HH tr. or
:::H. :.* .. ... *... .
mf1mmmA' **X **

p,. ...... p )
Hilli;:::"" ... *o. *a i..
..... .. ..1 e = ..-
....... ... : .. ..... ... p .: .|" *.
: .. .. ...
............. ... *...I .. *
... ; I' :.. ,j. *.: .
.il i ..i ::.. .: .. H .. ..
::::::::..:* *:*.. :: .:* : ** *. *
S:*:** .e..: .* : ..*



Hl. F...* H.H*..
:* : .. .. .
".. :.
mm: :'H4:" A






*i..-i":i *:"'H .
H HH .. Ht .i [G




. H H:i .... ........
t '... .. 1" .




... .. ....
:.:- ....nIo:t n
Ii.. /
,; :iii, ,.. .. :M i ~ ii
I;: :: ,HII ascnt


H
ZLfH,.4
-
~ V
V
H
H.11. **H.
-~
-


IiF P.
.1'


Issued -, 1932


meant


States


FOOD AND
*. i
*~ ~ -A -. .
*
( '-., *


JUDGMENT UNDER


Agriculture


ADMINISTRATION


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


wen pursuant toneUion 4:.f the Insectilcide aet]

12,-1l5


Secretary of Agricultur

; of Odora Peak dec
Paekages of Odpra
iture, nmd desttucti
Lora.. Peak deodorant
ed in packages the la


.le, when opened and the
insects and objectionable
not destroy such insects a
, 1932, the United States a
report by the Secretary of
States for the district afo


e, Washington, D. C., September 9, 19327j

dorant and moth destroyer. U. S ..
Peak. Consent decree of condemn,-
on. (I. & F. No. 1582. S. No. 266.)
and moth destroyer, involved in this
bel of which bore directions and claims


odors
odors.
nd odoj
attorney
Agricu


permitted to escape, would
Examination showed that
rs when used as directed.
for the District of New Jer
Iture, filed in the District C


*sey,
ourt


seizure and con-
Odora Peak. It
or about March
he State of New
in the original
Lisbranded insee-


that the statements,
Most efficient moth
objectionable odors
affixed to each of the
said statements the
chaser in that they
be effective against
ectionable odors in


when used as


directed,


I
I


tidle,


gment of condemnation and
e court that the product be


I On and'.O 4n.t, r, P .4 sma- ...a sm 74. .jr


aatfttJn, ~n. ~ MULl "11*15 u, ny-i iumsi.wu~.


~~~.... ." : "


t r .. .I
a., ,^.anal rnlikprssdlitw of H T H. I7. S. v. Ninety 4


I-Pound


resaid a li


bel praying
ix peaks of
shipped on
N. Y., into
ined unsold
it was a r


12 dozen packages, each containing s


t ge4..iip the libel that the article had been
:y. .the Odora Co. (Inc.), from New York,
...iat.alhaving been so transported it rema
.e packages at Morristown, N. J., and that
i.h ii .the meaning of e insecticide act of
sanding of the article'W as charged in the
.. Peak Deodorant and Moth Destroyer *
.B I.estroys roaches, insects, etc." and "1
@iSohns, basements, closets, etc.,k borne on th4
Were false and misleading;. arid by reason
. W s lAbeled. so as to deceive and mislead
ut 1* that the article, when used as directed
H bbKep and all insects, and would rer
..HHi- a......e closets, etc.; whereas the ar
:'ih::e o.r. such purposes.
., .i1982, by consent of the owner, jud
,tie was nte red and it was ordered by th
r4. by41.. .it& States marshal.
S. :.-:A- r nn a .r *n ,
.. ... : A DW :r.' m* T .T T-T.'rw


1910.
Libel in
*
Removes
e label a
of the


the pur
, would
ove obj










122


INSECTICIDE


ACT


* 'I


[N. J.. L


son Alkali Works (Inn), from Niagara Falls, N. Y., to.. Baaltimore, Md., that)
having been so transported it remained unsold in the original unbroken pa- ek
ages at Baltimore, Md., and that it was an adulterated and misbranded f-una-
ride within the meaning of the insecticide act of 1910. 4 i.: ::... :. .:,-
Adulteration of the article was charged in the libel for the reason that the .ii
statements regarding 1.0 a.iele, to wit, "The T H L .Lthis 'ckage contulug '
2% lbs. Available CBlotiine This l age "contams an-s accurat.id
measured quantity of H.T H,. a concentrated cal ium hypochlorite testing Si
available chlorine. The following table shows the strength of..lo-I
chlorite solution obtained with this can of H TH (either with or without the I
use of soda ash) when made up with different quantities of water:


0.6%
0.75%
1.0%
1.5%
3.0%'


Concentration of Solution
SDesired (Available
Chlorine Content)
-6000 p. p. ml
7,500 p. p. m.
10,000 p. p. m.
15,000 p. p. m.
30,000 p. p. m.


Trtal.VIt.bl.
Solution (1.
Gallons)


gals.
gals.
gals.
gals.
gals.


'' For example, if a 1.0%


30 gallon
dissolved
million a
water to
on the l
standard
pounds o
chlorine
available


article


s of solution. *
in 30 gallons of
available chlorine,
25 gallons to give
Abel affixed to the
and quality wer
f available chlorine
and that solutions
chlorine stated on


fell below


each of the cans
contained less t
directed would
Misbranding
borne on the ca.
statements the
the purchaser,
represented and
centage amountO
alleged for the
Preparation of
confused with a


the prof


solution is required use enough water to make Up
* For sterilizing solutions, 1 can of H T H
water gives a solution containing 10000 $p&rt t.r
One quart of this solution may be made up with
a solution containing 100 parts per million," brn
Scans containing the article, represented thae its
? such that each of the said cans contains .
?; that the article contained 65 per cent of ava.ille
made as directed would contain the percent Of
the label: whereas the strength and purity t. fe
essed standard under which it was sold, 'in t.t


contained less than 2% pounds of available chlorine; the artile
han 65 per cent of available chlorine, and solutions made m.
contain less available chlorine than stated.
was alleged for the reason that the above-quoted state"'e
n labels were false and misleading, and by reason of the 1d
r
article was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mituld
since the said article contained less available chlorine tthn
solutions made as directed would contain less than the;pr-
of available chlorine.stated on the label. Misbranding' wg.
further reason that the statements, to wit, "For *' ,,
* Sterilizing Solutions and should no. :e


other produ


bleaching or sterilizing solution
ing; and by reason of the sai
deceive and mislead the purcha
prepared as directed would ster
would not sterilize. Misbrandii


article consisted
cium hypochlori
gate fungi (bac
each and every
correctly on the


partly
te, i. I
teria)
one o
label


y of inert
e., substan
, and did
f said ine
affixed to


ct on the market which is used for ptepitj
s," borne on the label, were false and mie
d statements the article was labeled so &d~%
ser in thnt they represented that. th 6iolutiO
ilize; whereas the solution prepared as dit*
ng was alleged for the further reason tlt,
* substances, to wit, substances other tb
ces that do not prevent, destroy, repel'"B":r
not have the name and percentage amont,
rt substances or ingredients stated pitlily at
each of the cans containing the article;. nor,.


li|ii thpronf woPo thc nnmo andrl npwraPPntAfa nmount


of the sunbsh.tann. r in


L --


=


LX




'"~H ,~*
IrlH sP.r H
V


S t. BD.SMlENT


123


** : ._*.**:***,, .... .. :..* :...... .. .. o .... ...*.
,l .."," **. th = *" ired
:.S.. bbasy 60, 1932,; th ted States a.-ti
acting upon a rep f bty the Seen
'-i 7 fMgrt of the United .for the .d
H tw.,r~?and condemnation of 2%&g .of Ceda
..i t' Article had been shippf..: or abol
t.Wiatbn Mfnufacturing. Co.4 aukee,
.. n rtt ag"-been so transported i remained
t ie*bgmtt Chicago, .Ill., and f- it was
me'ainig of the insecticide a.t 1910.
': Lisbhanding.of the article ws ..chltrged in
4I j. bs.J. Net Weight" afid :-".Cedartex
O.. I*.. *:. Moth RepeUllent Fermanent,
p iao of said statements the article wa
abea and deceive the purchaser, in that t
t- ah ieontained .'25 pounds of the article
: sidrd eeed, would act as a~permnnanent r
.o siad..bagaLdid not contain 25 pounds .but


the article, .when used as
motha .. Mbranding.. was
lstd partially of inert
tha.tis to say, substances
vai the name and ;percent
t .thel artite were not s
*ptaaiia..,the said arti
etk amounnt of the sul


torney


tary of
district a
rtex. It
it Augus
Wis., int
unsold i


for the Northern


Agriculture,
foresaid, a 1
was alleged
t 9, 1929, .b.
o the State
LU the origin


misbranded


District


filed in the
ibel praying
in the libel
ytheE. D.
of Illinois,
al unbroken


insecticide


~~'ithin


iH|E
.'j
.





:-
j...'
i.:

H.




S.
.-
t...

;..


s labeled and
iey represented


branded so
that each


and that the said a
epellent of moths; w
did contain a less


directed, would not act as a permanent
alleged for the .further reason that the
substances, namely, substances other tha


that
age
tate
cle;
bsta


do not prevent, destroy
amouwt of each of said
d plainly and correctly
norr in lieu thereof,
nee or ingredient of the


Opeites,i apd the total percentage
Stated plainly and correctly on each (
" .'.:=.O.:arch 25, 1932, no claimant ha
4.eon.demation .and forfeiture was
Sb.t tle zodact be destroyed by the
..'.. "" "/ ""; : -- .." A RTr
:.i
: ." "' J .
.mtbriunding of Coeksee atie
.- ..' ...~:: ,rtt re, and destruction,
..::,ition, of Cocksec. sticks an
. .:: .Iftn"5sectcides, showed that th
i::.. .. Of certain insects for which t
III1. :i',,:.;!!^. ,a tement of the name and p
-*Ri .b.' liEU tereof, the name and pe
... ite Lpergentage of the inert
.i Zuay--1 1032, the United S
i!:- =3b Rll ai-i -ujonm a report by the Sec


of the United States
adefitfntion of 300 b
At Ban Juan, P. R.
6ffl3g4I n "* about SR


for the
oxes of
It wai
ntembe


, repe
inert
on t
were
artic


1, or mitigE
substances
he label ol
the name
le having i


article, w
whereass
amount
repellen
article
n cedar


then
each
and
t of
con-
oil,


Lte insects,
contained
f the bags
and per-
nsecticidal


of the inert ingredient so present therein,
of the labels.
ving appeared for the property, judgment
entered, and it was ordered by the court
United States marshal.


iUR M. HYDE,


SIecretary of


Agriculture.


and Cocksee spirals. U. S. v. 300
SDefault decree of condemnation,
. & F. No. 1564. S. No. 254.)


.Is
l

m
t


;d Cocksec spira
e articles would
hey were recomn
percentage amoun
rcentage amount
; ingredients, as
kates attorney f
retary of Agricu


district aforesaid a
-Cocksec sticks and
r alleged in the libel
r O. 1931. by T.Lanrf


s, produ
not be
ended.
of each
jf each
required


cts intended for
effective in the
The label failed
inert ingredient;
active ingredient
by law.


or the District of Puerto
liture, filed in the District


libel praying seizure
50 boxes of Cocksee
that the articles had
dlpr- Hnmrnn & Hafv-


. -., .- e -, -
-...,. .' .} lSn Fr-ancisco, Calif. to San Juan', P. R., that they were being
.H e: |for sale in Puerto .ico by Gonzalez Padin & Co. (Inc.), San
:",...' m., P. RB., and that they were misbranded insecticides within the meaning
idd act of 1910.I
lH k.rei': of the said Coceksec spirals was alleged in the libel for the reason
k:..o e"ter"tador, borne on the cartons containing
"iUIii:3 *JM ^ lEfrSjaybfloirL A'XJ '-S cl nnkS A i.4&. J .',rA.A K lvr -j.^nnnn* aDf +tIn j.n4A^ ni-ndi-Anennnd- d-bnj


the libel in that the statements,
Plaster Lining For Clothes
" were false and misleading, and


I. t
F.
I.
H.


.
:11.



I
.
"H
*
flIH II~
H
I.
a
L::
.HHH
a
.1,i..
'1 *
H
n.H


r m




H
K.
EEl
- -. a -


144


:EEEEEE"i...
""[V:.
. ...BSTIO


.fl*


qACT


.. X..:" .. "%.: ...:. .. ."":::.ii':::
Mlsbrsndinh of the- .ks kn aI gdfoultbR .
H .. .. .. .... ...... ... ... ... .. ..I
ments, ter 't.T$an .. ito K.r.* .+...:a
year when .the disease frrie-" iTfectr. ......... ............i...
assisted *.u t '(.t. ".. thf r Try .. "= :..::...
Mosquito Sticks," (tr" from **panese)^t tAt ...i
.killets Mosq: thtks," (*.t.anslated. i....
ates flies and mosquitoems"1Eme on te.box. lab.el a t,
Than Best Mosquito Killer i-:*' ke a 1tei....et 'e.:.a
them in the room well shut up andhe meostes-a and 6hiS
instantly drop. and die," (translated t Spani .) 'The- "Best fiaB
destroy mosquitoes .abd flies, smoke tbktick, ting it a: tione-04 .t. .i
ties," (translated from Portuguese) : hei mest powerful! ine ... "" .
the stick, lighting it at one of its extremities, im the places where their
an li s a pe r...". .... i-" ....iliu
and flies appear," borne on the wrappers of thdEsaiatitks,: a.ndheseta' .
"Cocksee Sticks and Spirals. This is themostiderful destre ot!
that can be found in the world. 'If you take a *W of these stich"kese"- ....iif"
smoke them in a room well inclosed, risquitd, flies, gnats, eockrou l..'.l4
therein will die instantaneously from tire effectat the smoke," (translateu.i.i II
Spanish) "This celebrated insecticide Coca' exterminates: galk.ai H
insects To destroy mosquitoes or a' other: ying in ectf IEAX
with 'Oocksec' in sticks or spirals lighting it at one of its-aetu'emitiimi#:
(translated from Portuguese) "Fumigdte witkt^Cocksec' Stick ant'",f ii-
Spiral. Light it at one of its extremities in the places where thoet-lsji:]! .H
other flying insects appear," appearing in the circulars accoempan5in5 -st i iM
sticks represented that the article, when used at directed, would be eaetljilql
against mosquitoes, flies, gnats, cockroaches, etc., and against all flying iiiiii m
whereas the article would not be effective for the above purpo"a *. '.. .
Misbranding of both products was alleged for the further easDua atti4.*
articles consisted partially of inert substances, lamely, s'ubstaflee.s EtJ1
powdered pyrethrum flower heads, and the name and percentage -am...ts1t ..
each and every one of such inert substances or ingredients were not state1.. H .l..:i.
the labels borne on or affixed to the package of the articles; nor, in 1b.A.inliil
thereof, were the name and percentage amount of the substances or lweiefli
of the articles having insecticidal properties, ad the total percentage -ottiq!
inert ingredients present therein, stated plaiMy and correctly n 6f i the I ili
On February 3, 1932, no claimant hating apjkared for the property, jUdia
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the'oSI'i
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal. '. .-:
ArTHV Mh. :HYD. Secretary of Aufi4'".'..
**" *L D :iB **::
1230. Adulteration and miabrandiang of ealeim arsenate; 2IT S.'. .
100-Pound Drmums of Lead Amenate and Lime. DieldtttH OBl
coaulemnation, forfeiture, ana deatrugethon. (I. & W. M@[. LN.iyU* ..
__ 243.) : ", :, ,, "-,'J::i
Examination of samples of a product, labeled calcium arsenal ..
that the article was in fact a mixture of lead arenate and lime., Tf i
of the article failed to declare the total amount -of arsecLc,.the.a
arsenic in water-soluble form, and the inert ingredients (ingrqients.,
for insecticidal purposes) contained in the article, in manae.,-
la w ... t. ... ..,, .. .. .
On August 5, 1981, the United States attorney Lor. tlie*Dtj I
of Mississippi, acting upon a report by the Secretaus. of .4gricfl .: |
the District Court of the United States for the.district adore :. .


....... ...
" iii"...
i... i .. ii.
"....




* .... I.'
~J h
'N Nh H
NIH.
- Ht:H~.
I.


ii..:::......:
I e *eL"
.i:: .i.. .


HI^B 0^ JTD'MEN

LIces a product o. .ha ..a. Parisapeen or lead arsenate, c
IAnd did not, have Ei .. aI smou~ of arsenic, expressed as
I. stated on the label; a l. that= it contained arsenic in wat'
16S4d not have the amo ei reof, expressed as per centum ol
stated on the label. dingg was alleged for the furthi
Sartile consisted pa '. of inetrt substances, namely, s'
g itead arsenate, whietih ltanees do not prevent, destroy,
Sncts, and did not ha le name and percentage amount,
Sfr one of such' inert ijgl ents contained therein plainly
ted on the label on th saif. drums; .nor, in lieu thereof, did
be name. and percentage amount of..the ingredient having in
le: contained in the. article, and ithe total percentage of
bb.1 1* ,-' <"'c '' h r 1 "
(tembbr 7, 1981, no claimant ha.ig appeared for the proper


125


containing
Smetallic
er-soluble
f metallic
er reason
Liubstances
repel, or
* of each
and cor-
the label
secticidal
inert in-


ty, judg-


t.u .e lepdenation and forfeiture way entered, and it was ordered by the
"'th et't product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
=' : -- --


.' at ... ... .. ..
V. .
.: **, :: ::. :
":* : ...
NHflfl. YiCb.nUlIiSE of Odora
m ..... -i .".; O-o-a0 Cedar Fluid.
.. :/..:;,. a. ad alestruetion. (I.
I .. RilamInation of a product, la
': .number of. so-called Mothola
Ot. the articles, when used a
caiJnei in the labeling.
O ,.::g April 22 and April 25, 1
..f w Jersey, acting upon r
te.... District Court of the Unit
'sKnre and condemnation of ]
S i .the libels that the article ]
5, 1932, and in part on or ab


AftlHU M. HYDE, secretary of Agriculture.
cedar fluid. U. S. v. 140 Bottles, et al., of
Consent decrees of condemnation, forfeiture,
& F. Nos. 1588, 1584. S. Nos. 267, 268.)
bele4 Odora cedar fluid, with which were shipped
tori, intended to be used with the fluid, showed
s directed, would not afford the moth protection


932, the United States attorney for the
reports by the Secretary of Agriculture,
ed States for the district aforesaid libels
190 bottles of Odora cedar fluid. It was
had been shined in part on or about F


)ut. Febru:


frm New York, N. Y., into the State
tuansported it remained unsold in the c
tgtR.abeth, N. J., and 50 bottles at L
tsbranded insecticide within the meai
Mibr'anding of the article was charg<
ttments r"The Ideal Moth Repellai
Wyery Closet A Cedar Closet *
..eoset from destructive moths," borne
" statementss, "Use. Odora Motholator
H-,Protection For use wi
:t'1epefllant Makes Every
*qaIrtons containing the Motholator;
Bmx.:o. the said statements the arti


ary 10, 1932, by the Odora Co.
of New Jersey, that having


District
filed in
praying
alleged
ebruary
(Inc.),
been so


original unbroken packages, 140 bottles
song Branch, N. J., and that it was a
ling of the insecticide act of 1910.
ed in the libels for the reason that the
it Efficient Makes
The Vapors emitted protect contents
Son the carton inclosing the fluid, and
with Odora Cedar Fluid for Complete
th Odora Cedar Fluid The Scientific
Closet a Cedar Closet," borne on the
s, were false and misleading; and by
cle was labeled and branded so as to


S..p:mislead the purchaser, in that they represented that the article,
.ie 1 directed, would be efficient in repelling moths, would protect the
tiQ losets from destructive moths, would furnish complete moth pro-
i.A- act as a scientific moth repellent, and would make every closet
.:.. againstt moths as would a cedar closet; whereas the article, when
Ii'.cted, would not be.effective for the said purposes.
.l .. 4.1 1932, upon the consent of the owner, judgments of condemnation
|ig|ir were entered, and it Was ordered by the court that the product
..,....... dby the-United States marshal.
i"'" '... ".... A u Df Mi flvin R .oin.o. ar nf A nr$ni- it,, ..*


I


!


]
[
{
[







126


t..SESTICIDB5 ACT


efective against certain'maumots for trhith it 'was 'aa en u ed u a
directed. The Green Cros: Neio-Tone contained less e -Ad ..a greater
percentage of inert; ingredientabhan declared on thlsbel, : .... j.. -.
On January 23, 1932,. ttheT United States attorney -ir the Distit. 0;
Jersey, acting upon a report by the Secretary of..-Agzttlur%'A:Ged ,i-
District Court of the UMted States for the district: aforeid an informant
against the Lucas KUl-Tone Co., a corporation, Vbnelandc KNJ,, allegiv
meant by said company, in violation of the insecticide act of .1910,.of quati
of Bordo lead arsenate and .g a quantity of Greene Gross Nicp-Tone,./
products were adulterated and misbranuded. Thefinformation .alleged. tha t.
said Bordo lead arsenate had been shipped in part on or about Fpbugnt. ._
1931, and in part on or about February-6, 1931, from the State. of Neawi
into the State of Illinois, and that the said Green Cross Nico-Tone bakM
shipped on or about June 3, 1931, from the State of New Jersey into tbh.e.t


of Pennsylvania. .
Adulteration of the said Bordo.lea
for the reason that the statements
Copper (Expressed as metallic) 5.2
Inert Ingredients not more than 21.
combination of Arsenate of Lead, a
specially prepared copper fungicide,"
containing a portion of the article,
73.00-76.00% Inert Ingredients not
affixed to the packages containing th
and quality of the article were such


of lead arsenate an
substances that do


also, in the case of a
sisted of copper and 1
the article fell below th
since it contained less
sented, and a portion
ingredient, in addition


1 not more
not prevent,


.. ..'
d se a wa~dI XA llefaf di lha i tj


*, ".B.
5-S25
75%
poison
born
and
more
e rem
that


than 21.75
destroy, r


portion of th
ead arsenate c
e professed sta
lead arsenate
of the article
to copper and


e arti(
Dnly;
ndard
and m
e cont
lead


n~a e.w Tas an ea na e n
ordo Lead Arsenate *.Tot
5% Dry Lead Arsenate 73.00-76.00%.
* *, Bordo Lead Arsenate is.a
in to most leaf-eating insects, with a
e on the label affixed to the packages
the statements "Dry Lead Arenate
Than 21.75%," borne on the labels
ainder, represented that the standard
it contained not less than 73 per cekib


per cent of inert ingredients, i. e.,
epel, or mitigate insects or fugi;
cle, that its active ingredients c0n-
whereas the strength and purity-ct
and quality under which it was sold
ore inert ingredients than so repre-
ained calcium arsenate, an aetyve
irsenate. Adulteration of a portion


of the article was alleged for the further reason that the statements, "Active
Ingredients Total Copper (Expressed as metallic) 5.25-6.25% Dry Lemn
Arsenate 73.00-76.00%," borne on the label, represented that its active Intre-:
dients consisted of copper and lead arsenate only, whereas calcium arsenal.
had been substituted in part for the article.
Adulteration of the Green Cross Nico-Tone was alleged for the reason that
the statements:, "Nicotine 2.75%-3.25% Inert Ingredients 96.75%-93.25%'
borne on the label, represented that the standard and quality of the article
were such that it contained not less than 2.75 per cent of nicotine, and cot*
stained not more than 97.25 per cent of inert ingredients; whereas the strength
and purity of the article fell below the professed standard and quality under
which it was sold, in that it contained less nicotine and more inert ingredients
than so represented.
Misbranding of the Bordo lead arsenate was alleged for the reason that tfI
statements, Bordo Lead Arsenate Bordo Lead Arsenate is a .mbb
nation of Arsenate of Lead, a poison to most leaf-eating insects, with a speckill


prepared copper fungicide," a
as metallic) 5.25-6.25% Dry


not more than 21.75%
metallic not more than


" an
.75%


d
"
,


nd "Active
Lead Arse
"Arsenic i
with respe


H!!
.1!


Ingredients Total Copper (Expres.sed
nate 73.00-76.00% Inert Ingredients ;,N
n Water Soluble form expressed ,i
ct to one lot of the article,-the s.tamit
e.:..: ." ":


": mmmmm
tN *. > ".:,
H:'..l^
"i s '


I
Hi:
"H'
**i.j~iHi


.




:1.1W


'Er.


.1
p1'..
*H.


4 -


II'


ii
omwm. E.T
""".


B'Wti* insects 'a*r tn.Ite in t ftaid
( l.as sot a lead ar f land fugicide a

:.is: arsenatee it had otaieM:l 'e ingthdientt
iI uilm: arsenate, and it i& ed more.tha
VlituuweuU.h.. .Corm (expressed ag.M.Ilic arsenic)
If l1lt1t the Green. Cross' ulty Tone was na
H l.a....ts.at ANicotiyie 2.75a h -o Inert I
..... e seller guarantees the rial sold to
j::*::*:|::;::;:H| mthe label, were false an^ mieading and b
....: :.i~j*:: artiblev-was labeled and branded so as I
.".. sine. theta article contained less than. 2.7
.. H-4f.. 97?25 per cent of inert itgredieats.
|i .AilHi-S 1982, a plea of guilty to the informal
1: o .e' ddifenaant company, and the court imposed a
* *. 4 *: E p. D* *
;;.. : ;'"-^^ .. AsTHUr M. BYDES,


(.,==iii ..i : i: [ : i b
S::" !:'.i:." ..ti
4"" 464 ihtt


..:h*' AF'. rethe
.'On( *ttobei
JeSy battingg
. .Coufl of the
(Mt'atd & 01
shipment by
itwN Jersey 1
:.zl dl was a i

i: s:'!":" alle
H.:. .. d art
.. -.11. noH
"i ..nL.. ". ii..!

msied~art
'dfles '1l0
.ijiA paan pei


.- A4Bfld'

atybin
Sandie
..ixtersi

,,,, ,,,w
EN. yoi


I ".
..... H .:1- -" "

4
Hf.*::. ..
..

.......
a ,,~ ,, ,,
...0


tiuig of Go-FPeto
lty. II 3fne, $50.
nof the product
le was intended f
Sinert ingredients
10, 1931, the U:
'upon a report by
United States foi
ena (Inu.),; a cor]
said company, on
into the State of
misbranded fungic

ged in the inform&
ally of an inert se
ft .rfvetunt itno*


rcentage
Sid co
nor, in
ry subst
parties,
orrectly


b,1
az
rre
lie


S
In
I

U
I,


127


statements; and one lot of
ly, as stated in the label,
to wit, Bordeaux mixture,
than declared on the label
.75 per cent of arsenic in
the percentage declared.


alleged for
ngredlents
be true to I
y reason c
o deceive
5 per cent


reason that
75'%-97.25%
, if labeled,"
e said state-
mislead the
nicotine and


tion was entered on
fine of $490.


behalf


Secretary of Agriculture.


o. 1. U. B. v. Goulard & Olena
& B No. 1553. Dom. No. 28947.)
-Fecto No. 1, involved in this a
use as a fungicide and that thi
mtBhner required by law.


ed: States


attorney


for ti


the Secretary. of Agriculture,


(Inc.).


Plea


action, showed
'e label failed


Le District
filed in the


r the district aforesaid an information
poration, trading at Jersey City, N. J.,
or about February 24, 1931, from the E
Connecticut, of a quantity of Go-Fecto


ide within the meaning of the


nation that the article


bstance,
ranal .


to
bY.


mount of the said
!ctly on the label
su thereof, were t


ance 01
and th
on the


bate shipment
ic poison act (
ne information.
asi entered on
mof $50 as pena
*.


* ingred
e total
label.
of the
C.P.A
On N
behalf
ity for


1 wit, water
mitigate
inert sub
borne on
:he name


St
lent of t
percent


was m
r, that i
fungi
stance
the pac
and pe


he article
ge of the


isbr
sto
(bac
so p
kag
rcen


of New
District
against
alleging
;tate of
No. 1,


insecticide act of


handed
say, a
teria),
resent
e conta
tage a


having fungicida
inert substances,


in that it
substance
and the
were not
ining the
mount of


(bane-
stated


of the
being
to the
court


product also involved a violation
. No. 3, N. J. No. 3), both violations
november 17, 1931, a plea of guilty
of the defendant company, and the
violation of both acts.


ARTHUR M. HYBE. Secretary of


ItIfor- and misbrandug* of MaeGregor'. nt
MacGregor. Plea of guilty. Fine, $300.
.. 5842, 5843, 028278, 07986.)
--MacGregor's ant food, involved in th's action,
e: in the control of certain insects. Examinrtioi
e$ectivefor such purposes. The product involved
p'tain. less borax and more inert ingredients tlL
'-in .1-1 mCI +1 ,.ir flwd-nA4- *W4C!+flr*^- Ci+*/n..n ~fr. +Im


Agriculture.


food. U.
(I. & F. No.


El
Cs


S. v.
1533.


\wa represented
showed that it
in one shipment
n labeled.


flic-t-ri-t- n4'F NT~OU


I




Hi l.. :: ..i.
ii. "i.. H.:.
f, ....TICACT "9!.:...
: :::. :* *
.2 8 '..*.. H.:: :
.Hii- .". :


directed,
snails, w
lice, and
On Oci
tion, and


would
whereas


be an effective control for ants, cockroaches, wood lI1w
1 4 w. a.. 1 A a. a n .42 a na 4 .l C.- --I. a nL na


t i would not b


snails.
tober 20, 1981, the
the court imposed


del
ai


1235. Mfisbranding of Improv
(Ine.). Plea of guilty
Examination of the product
that the article did not have


prope
On
Jersey
Distri
again:
allegi
of Ne
which


rties claimed
October 5,
acting up
ict Court of
st the South
ng shipment


for it in th
1931, the U.
on a report


:an eteJCiY LUoLLUtr fLUo aUL4lt, LcoulaUczrmAcqyh
-
fendant entered a plea of guilty to the .....
One of $300. .
AnmrTU M. HnO Secretary of Agrftflrt
;::" .::.:: [ y ...E,,
ed Kill-It. U. H. v. South Jeruey Chemulieal i
. Fine, $25. (1. & F. No. 1557. DoIo. No. .a II
improved Kill-It,, involved in this action,: .uriO
certain, insecticidal, curative, and disian st!
e labeling. .. ..."-r
united States attorney for the District o.-liUll4
by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed .in..t.


the United States for the district aforesaid an infori
Jersey Chemical Co. (Inc.), a corporation. Vineland,
by said company, on or about April 6, 1931, from the


' Jersey into the State of Delaware,
was a misbranded insecticide and


the insecticide act of 1910.
It was alleged in the information
the statements, "Disinfectant *
Fill spray halffull of Kill-it, and appi
mites, bugs, or parasites collect *
where these pests collect *


that
-*
ly to
i *
For


Kr


of a quantity of improve lKtlf
_fungicide within the .mean i


*' *.
the article was misbranded i ....iM
Kills Pests and .Parasites .. *. =.
any surface, cracks or crevices whe
As insecticide-Spray Kill-it all ofl
Chicken Lice, Depluming: Mit


Spray heavily over the chickens (at night) while they roost. If spray
rectly on the birds, do not give a bath, it might irritate the skin. Kil*i il
trates the feathers and destroys these parasites," and "To Prevent Theti
Chickens, Pigeons, Ducks, Etc. To Treat Diseases .. N
Pox- Roup and Cold Canker," borne on the labe 1d
to the can containing the article, were false and misleading; and btfl


"Xg.


n ..nu


:..::... :" *..., r p6.,a~ s.,+ .,
8 per cent and cautati mtte. h e64" sub I l::
destroy, repel, or mi tigats, in t"."propertM .
cent, whereas the. strgt purity 4f the' fJtlkft beil lprow
standard and quality fdbr kich it as sold, it pt Hen.
per cent of borax and ?tan 90 percent of l .t.t. :.- .. .:a
Misbranding of the .a. prtion was alleged lor the: tha.t .3e: ..
ments, "Borax 8% Inert@g 9 borne on the lab, were falke ad ...
and by reason of the said tatbents thfarticle wa labeled.: and bradeC:.
deceive and mislead the pu~ataser, M: that ths. said statements re.;;.:.B
that the said article contained not leilthan 8 per cent of bora* Pa t
than 90 per cent of inert ingredients whereas it eantained 3f.libtt:f
more inert ingredients f tha.nso represented. Misbranding was "ilig'd"' a
respect to the product involved in all shipments for the reason that '.
ihents, "MacGregor's Ant Food Ad.itAmazing Discovery For .J- l
Ants, Cock Roaches, Woodlice,'Snails and cetin other Insects, *.,a:?...
reactions Dust the Food freely about the places where the Ants etc., are |
(a) For use on Golf courses: Dust Ant Food lightly over the surface of '
greens. (b) For Garden use.: Dust.-over the surface of the soil ..ar.
plants. (c) For Greenhouse use: Dust on the soil in the benches alo ad
the benches," borne on the labels, were false and misleading and by 'as
of the said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive and u ui
the purchaser, in that they represented that the said article, when U. Ht




**" .. .
. : S "itf .
*" ":. *. .."s :*:
... ...O.NT
.. ..: : ." ::."
ItX
H& -~afeaN 129
*.....


not..ma emuateso. Veils. basen
....-.."? earr*I"ie- ..uiealelam arsenate lime dust,
.R i.la brand SMitsouulmens brand TS lime S5 lead
*..le ... : et,. SC. .w oseettelte O0. Plea of guilty.
-r (f. .F. No. ii. N o25383, 028323, 02405, 03384, 03385.)
|ion f .the, products. .d:lin t*ll action showed that they were
.pr .-epbiued .insecti. d ftupgiddes, i. e., preparations intended
St e.atrol fl ipueet r both igects and fungi.. The products
:a Medina emulsion, M brand sulphur carrier dust, Ideal copper
^rq0ate lime :ant; and B .na brand dusting sulphur were in each
:un to contain less angredents (ingredients effective for the
Iuintended) and a larglr .ount. of inert ingredients (ingredients
ye for .the said purposes) ta declared on the respective labels. With
gop. :of.-the Medina brantdusting sulphur these four preparations
|j^statene.ts on thb labels declaring the inert ingredients in manner
m.: .-w.-. The Medina brand 75 lime 25 lead arsenate dust contained
.... f.hate than represented; it contained arsenic in combination, also


* *rPinttion.and in water-soluble form,
:t theJwt..e xpresaed as metallic arsenic; it
lbhausits in manner prescribed by law.
Agu4 23:1929, the United States attorney
a sk,, acting upon a report by ..the Secretary
rit E3qurt of. t.he United State for the district
Et.the New York Inaecticide o., Medina, N. Y
ia .. n a d r nh 1ta* n n j l ~ n n !


failed
failed


declare the
declare the


for the Western District of
of Agriculture, filed in the
t aforesaid an information
., alleging shipment by said
11 bw AW n 4- b%..nT w


*A S -n VUolatUAi UJ. lIte linDeticiLdlC stof Ul 0gi l U1 oruUt Fe UULURLrJ
i8-&firopn the State of New York into the State of West Virginia, of a
gi .tt. of Medina emulsion, which was an adulterated and misbranded
.ipdeiide within the meaning of said act. The information alleged further
lh enter by the defendant as follows: A quantity of Medina brand sulphur
.p ir dust from New York to Maryland on or about March 8, 1928; a quantity
- l .copper calcium arsenate lime dust from New York to Florida on or
S .M.ardh 29, 1928; a quantity Ef Medina'brand dusting sulphur from New
kW est Virginia on or abott April 12, 1928; and a quantity of Medina
I.ase 25 lead arsenate dit from New York to Rhode Island on or
. y 4, 1928, which said products were insecticides and fungicides within


*Balng of the act.
AASf ttidon of the Medin
.'"""hat the statements,
t.; ,ledients Water and
N- drums containing the
iiqtwh that it contAined i
11.cent byvolume,.ad col


f
a emulsion was alleged in the information for the
'Active Ingredients Paraffin Base Oil 64% by vol.
Emulsifier 36% by vol.," borne on the label affixed
article, represented that its standard and quality
paraffin base oil in the proportion of not less than
stained inert ingredients, that is to say, substances


. not prevent, destroy, repel, .or mitigate insects, in
toefe than 86 per dint by volumej- whereas the strength
let fell below the professed standard and quality under
i.& tit contained less.than 64 per cart by volume of paraffli
t:i'*.per cent by volume of inert ingredients.
.bd.lteraen of the Medina brand&ulphur carrier dust


the proportion of
and purity of the
which it was sold,
n base oil and more


ras alleged


for the


Y:*Don. that the statements, "Active Ingredients Sulphur not less than 89.0%
.ftt Ingredlents not more than 11. 0%," borne on the label, represented that
* :*"SfRtide contained not less thaW 89 per cent of sulphur and not more than
. ent.ii.fa inert ingredients. Whenas the strength and purity of the article
14W the professd standard azq quality under which it was sold, in that
.. """ew than 89 per cent I. sulphur and more than 11 per cent of
i .L.
*i:~iH~ is ss*1 F ***uu i











11 uraqzdiygap., h
abel, t renssihet4 .a.ole ceA ed noe.. ,....
antem wheas 'ethe, ^ an ieh o t e .- ...
staskiafl and qtalitj I'Bhfh'It.c u soldt Mt. it.A.
s .." i."i. ......l. U...... ... i
25.Pir eatbof leadflSS S -*/ r dlf "
- Misbrandi .,B *al'eg1 l.. the Ion .tla tHe
au taring ini he ibeln d ree artle*, weretl S
and'by reason ^of the said stktemen .he artt|Ees wfre id^^1! ..
so as to deceive ani misflead the ptttaser. *Ibisftdikg wf'us l
reject to the said Medina Randd 75tie 25 len al..te 4dut d" *.
reason that the article conatheO arse e in ,mblnation, alnb aT Sf t
bilation and in water-soluble Torm, a. the4- 1: ioni of &tdbk'
In the article, and the total amgnt Of Satsnid.. *ttersolableforfl
stated on the label, as per centta of ietallice Sflbie. Misbranding v; ..
with respect to'all products, with the..excepfq ,of the Meilna" bVl'4
sulphur, for the further reason that ((e artflbs consated part.iliy.
substances, namely, substances that dt not parent, aestrot, repel' .W*p.
insects 'or fungi, and the name and percentag ramounti of a.' doft ':
substances or ingredients so present inthe artiles were not stateM .I :
correctly on the labels affixed to the d&rns containing the said attie ;:b
liedi thereof, were the name and percentage amount of each andievery qBi.
or ingredient of the articles having incticidal or"fungicidal prt rtipse rU
total percentage of the inert substances so present therein, stated plabI ij
correctly on the said labels. : ,h
On April 11, 1932, a plea of guilty tb the information was entered 0." 1*


of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25. "
ARTEUR M. ftlE, Secretary of Agflo4
*jI' 1 V :, :'


nrn
F.


'F
.j.


1l87. Adulteration and misbrandi "of MeSliing' s 'S .M .tW
tnre. U. 3. v. Meeblinu Bros. Chemical Co. Plea at s.llty a. l
9800. (I. & F. No. 1542. Dom. Se. 028293,) 7
Examination of a product known ms Mechling's 75-5--20 dusting uat
showed that the article was intended :for use in the control of inest1we
fungi, and that it contained: a smaller percentage of sulphur, .an d*tel I
gredients, and a larger percentage of itert ..ingredients (ingredieats .inem
for the purposes intended) than labeled. .... l i.
On May 29, 1931, the United States attorney for the District of N4W t
acting upon a report by the Seeretary of Agriculture, filed in. theaitUi
Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an infofamlhe iagaM
Mechling Bros. Chemical Co., a corporation, Camden, N. J., alleging p_ .H
by said company, in violation of the insecticide act of 1910. on. or boat M
8, 1930, from the State of New Jersey into the State of Pennyrvapl :.
quantity of the said Mechling's 75-5--0 dusting mixture, whichiwea :v *41
terated and misbranded insecticide and fungicide within the meatigt M!
act. ....
It was alleged in the information that the article was ada.terati&,I<
the statements, to wit, "Sulphur not less than. 72%, .' .*.. '-
gredients not more than 24%," borne on the label affixed to t ta
tainihg the article, represented that its standard and quality: wee 'i
it contained sulphur in the proportion, of not less .than 72.per--..".a.ii
tained inert ingredients, that is to say, substances that do notp x nflu




. ..:* .
..*H.
i KI ..


ENT


131


'K t lgard. U. 5. v,, 2955 Saqkps
It. .*ef eoademnatioz, forfeiture,
einits of Plantgard, a product in-
eofl ant d fungi. The active ingredients
: of:itb article were sulphur and sodium
or,: iliccguoride, and aapltha]ene. Both
ain smaller percentages of the active in-
of the. inert ingredients than labeled.
proeUqt were two circulars containing
' nM of t-he arti e in tha onnl-trnl of


.. rumi *. I S *. .. .
B i wr 2, 1932, the Unitead'tates attorney for the Southern District
atitt0g tpon a report by bhe Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
Ct ft-lie United Statesifor the district aforesaid a libel praying
'onOm*tion of two.' hundred and ninety-five 100-pound sacks,
limophd sacks, eight ::100-pound drums, and six 25-pound drums
..a. 'aaflrmtgard.ti- It was alleged in the libel that the article had been
indbNalbnI Podirtcts (In.,.from Quincy, 111., on or about March 19,
a-2f Atfl mbier 19, 1980, to Bun Benito, Tex., that having been so trans-
dit ireimained unsold in the' original unbroken packages at San Benito,
f:giit tat it was an adulterattd 'and misbranded insecticide and fungicide,
hin the zneaning of the insecticide act of 1910.
Adulteraton of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that the
euzgzts, 'Active Ingredients Sulphur 15.6%, Sodium Silicofluoride 15.2%,
r Iimediepts'69.29So, borne on the label of the drums containing a portion
fie article, 'and the statements, "Active Ingredients Sulphur 15%, Naphtha-
' .,a Sodium Silicofluoride 15%, Inert Ingredients 67%," borne on the
ls the sacks containing the remainder, represented that its standard
4lity were such that it contained not less than the declared proportions
e td.d active ingredients and contained not more than the declared
|&..s Of inert ingredients, whereas the article contained less sulphur,


ikm silicofluoride, and more inert ingredients
"itaed less naphthalene than labeled.


for the reason


that


the


i l ati the labels of the said drums and sac
. .. aa ffy reason of the said' statements the
S,, 4'moa) to deceive and mislead the purchaser, i
i ...... .... tie 'contained not less than the said proi
aE, f.an.4n4ot more than the said proportions of iner
,e i flx ied- I Bs active ingredients and more inert ingre
-ilru. Ldnra rg was alleged for the further reason t
M b:" :gE" B ii ..5 b... .. .. I^) "^^
;,4ion a cirtblar headed .:' Plantgard The
'N t ws...wnrbL 4L.S nl
HiH* .*Ii. .of wlich 'were shipped Wah the article, "
... .* Positively safe to hUiman beings anit
*pgonou powder *Plantgard *
... !H:" "l.de. .* Rosq"k Nasturtiums and
..-, ,.H *.F. .. owdery Mildew t Beans--Mexican
S" l a nj : --,,-,* -- -, -....


than


labeled


above-quoted statements
ks were false and mis-
irticle was labeled and
in that they represented
portions of active ingre-
t ingredients, whereas it
dients than so declared.


hat the
National


following state-
Insecticide," a


Non-Poisonous *
lals, and birds, *
* A Garden and
other flowering
Bean Beetle *


*
*
Field
plants
*


Ktlitg, ,aterpilar, Leaf Hpper, Beets---Beetles, Webworm,
-BB1 Weevil, Cabbage, Lettuce, Cauliflower, Kale-Beetles, Cabbage
..Mauthlern Cabbage Worm, Corn-Leaf-Eating Caterpillar *
lo, lEvergreens, Ferns-B-a Spider Bush Fruits-Weevil,
..r *Beetle. Raspberries, Wfackberries, Strawberries---Saw Flies, Cat-
!1 ,!* WL eaf-Eating I*ts Egg Plant-Beetles, Lace Bug, Flea
. n fl fl I V a S F fl 4 fl a 4...




a:: **l. .
.:1*.. ...:
..*** .: ..:****
:I ...
- Hi=


140T
LA


-S-.- .. .
H ~. H,.
~ HP

...i
I. ...~H.
"4....
H H"
..1.N.h.


(N.J.
~~iJE ln


d i" .^I^ K ^ *L w- ^k .. -r-e -: a**^J KjI~n^.^^^._^ kt^ -H w -: jKHClwIPRk*- B^ w *A AAI


Plantgard for the flrBTa this aua er ad...4 It ofj .
to KiU11 red spider o." ..I hae erer used .:-, il ^iia.
some of your Planttgaihbe ng thatheere amy.. ...
as we call it--and It -A : d:it and i. didn't fi, ead ., r
think.' P "I Ued thle Plantgara very sna0, onL
stopped wet weather blight. M ow I fen- that itsto~pad wtwtg
I was half through dusting when rain (topped we from fnisht
rain was over where I had dusted, I ad no blight in the ."-"
remainder of the field was badly coere with Mights whe thr 1
no dust,' 'Ud ym Plantgd on aIpath o ca
was worm infested, and can stahe that lame hflceened the patch ao
* 'I have been using Plantgard for mn flowers. It suere kea
sects.' ** 'It kept away insects, very .1, when I could p
I tried it on Beans, Pumpkinea, Grapes:: and Wtermelon Vines.' ,
have used your Plantgard, an Mon totatoes articularly, I.. em
will do all you claim for it. In a field of several acres I sprayed sev
of tomatoes, and can find no infection or blight of any kind on thl
the tomatoes on either side have been and age severely attacked tlf
' In all cases I have found it to give perfect control of chewing inch t
parently stops completely the action of cut worms. On arl.
black eyed peas all diseases and insects have been controlled
* I am now ready to report that the striped melon beetle 6
lately eliminated, the flea hoppers on the egg plants are gone, pnd thvA
roller on the strawberries have been absolutely checked," were false arc :
leading; and by reason of the said statements the article was labels
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purctawer, in that they rep
that the article was nonpoisonous, and when used as directed would befi
as a fungicide against all the fungus diseases for which it was recpieli
and would be effective against the varies insects above enumerated; whe.
the said article was not nonpoisonous, it would not be effective as a fu
against the fungous dieases for which, it was :recommended, and wot.
be effective against the insects enumerated in the above statements. .
On March 26, 1932, no claimant having appeared for the property, JUdfl
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
ARTHUR M. HYrn, Seoretary of Agriasfr


..1':


.N. NE


12389. Mlsbranding of Cresolene. .V S. v. Certilne Mannt. f.tn
(Inc.). Plea of unilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. No. 1575.* ..Dom. Wt
Examination of a product, known as Cresolene, showed that the 'atrte "4
not possess the antiseptic, disinfecting, and deodorizing properties elaihard
it in the labeling, also that the label failed to declare the inert itf M.
present in the article in a manner prescribed by the law. .
On May 23, 1982, the United States attorney for the Eastern Distr$$,
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agr.iut .I
the District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an ...o:.
against the Certiflne Manufacturing Co. (Inc.), a corporation, trading a .
delphia, Pa., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the 1'.
act of 1910, on or about August 13, 1981, from the State of Penn8 -y A
the State of Massachusetts of a auantitv of Cresolene which was a mil


132




iR i*' .
HE. H *
.
I....H..
:iii 1... :" :

S 0WarENT


133


)l pint of wuiate
1ewere false a
as labeled and brap.
Spresentedthst therm
hat when usednas di
I would disinfect j


" a !: !: :
ine#oxtHe .li affixed to the bottles contain-
ddibp.0by reason of the said statements
Si ta t d receive and mislead the purchaser,
f.uwas am ideal antiseptic, disinfectant, and
Sit wala.disinfect each crack and crevice
.would 'disinfect water closets, urinals,


.l..* d slop bowls; woul.. nsffeective antiseptic as a douche; wo
te antiseptic for ,; would disinfect drains; would be
e.v|.stetant for earpe:l .,s, etc.; and would be an effective di
t...... thebhands; whereas i.W not an ideal antiseptic, disinfectant,
.....t, aa the article, whenr as directed would not be effective for
*e2-^.Misbraading. was ali ed for the further reason that the art
:s ;:rttiale of tn inert suetance, to wit, water, that is to say, a s
Bi :.dea not prevent, destroy, repeh or mitigate fungi (bacteria),
......M d -percentage amount of, the said inert substance so present in
SW.,h .4: t stated plainly and correctly, or at all, on the label; nor
etS. wave the name and percentage, amount of each and every substa
:i redient of the article having fungicidal properties, and the total perc
ti inert substances present in the article stated plainly and correc
6! on the said label.
H:'. HBI.Jmne 14, 1932, a plea of guillt to the information was entered on bel
tize. defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
.-. ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of AgricOiFtr
. .: .S "^ :"i *? ..
...... ...b


uld
an
sin-
and
the
icle
sub-
and
the
, in
nce
ent-
tly,

half

0.


)j Adulteration and misl
3 Cartons of -Green
: deaemnation and dest!
examination of a product,
,een Cross Beetle Mort,"
hate (the effective ingred
ediepts than represented
ortion of water-soluble a
im vegetation when used
t May 21, 1932, the Unit


branding
CrOm B
auction.
intended
showed t
ient) and
in the la
arsenic th;
as directed
ed States


of Green
eetle Mo
(8581-A.
for use
hat the
a larger
beling. T
an labele(
*d.


attorney


jpSlvan.ia acting upon a report by the Secretar:
Iiflt Court of the United States for the distri
.7 and condemnation of three.cartons, each con
. ...of the said Green Cross Beetle Mort. It
"aagticle had been shipped on or about Decemb
., by the Lucas Kil-Tone Co., into the State o
.$.o transported it remained unsold in the ori
arbgh Pa., and that it was an adulterated and
B.Paris green and' lead arsenate, within the
Ki.oa.
ration was alleged in the .ibel for the
S:.cdor use .on vegetation, and.when used on ci
[ belt it would be injurious ,to the foliage
| 'l:e further reason thatithe statements
....fi- *"n ITnaer In- Tieanta_-'nt mon


Cross Beetle Mort. U. S. v.
rt. DefaulIt decree of Con-
I. & F. No. 1589.)
as an insecticide and labeled
article contained less calcium
amount of inert (ineffective)
'he article contained a larger
d, and would be injurious to


Western


District


y of Agriculture, filed in the
ct aforesaid a libel praying
staining twenty-four 1-pound
vas alleged in the libel that
er 23, 1930, from Vineland,
f Pennsylvania, that having
ginal unbroken packages at
misbranded insecticide other
meaning of the insecticide

reason that the article was
certain vegetation as directed
thereof. Adulteration was
to wit, "Calcium Arsenate
'e than 30 A0% Totnl Araonin


I. ta rA S Ai .t f qj LKAV tJ1VLaa L Art V J \ a L a... .
..g s..Metallic) 18.00-21.OQ% Water Soluble Arsenic---Expressed as
i-noq more than 1.00%," boze on each of the 1-pound cartons and on
%..e 1-pou)d. bags within .tI.said cartons, represented that the article
.""um arenate in the Apportion of not less than 40 per cent, that
iM^iaamfiiit iafilu iewnlianniu naiSinu cnhcl-stnnaae thlat- dnf nnt- nrvnt dontf- rn~fir


. jj, : j;1
.a.....
4
... ... .


1




":* .. .* ... '.. .":: .. .... ..:.
:.'f' .. .; .. :
.. *****.ll"
"I"..T .. .. ...i.. Hr
2r l, .. cx~mT [jh;-O -G ,.*....n,
.:: *:H.: : .. **
H* **** k
a. la g e ...t ... ...* ......
a larger amount o i.'ients, .... "". bataM
destroy, repel, ot niti aets, th, .Tpre.t..W.. ...H
water soluble crnefeic, evSI as," metl"M, thanHc '
Misbranding was NaEt the. fur er reawfl -tat ie q l.
mftes, "For Killing 'Pi* icW And O r Leaf ^ti bel
as a dust or spray fort.%Ir-S. Mel. as And Other (ra Cropgi
Hardy *Poliage **.*- *tgCiest most, eaf-eatktig iniet* pdting H*A H
.. ...... ..



Melons, and other Hardy Pld.ge. Six eight poitdu p *.":rem::: de:E
conditions is sufficientt for ti above-n .ed crop-. .. t ..;...1e"
antees the material sold to blette to i el," bofle ow thi4:IabetaW!tl3H
cartons and bags, were false and mislaing, an by reason of tht UM
inents the article was labeled: and br ie so -S to -deceive and tnt..E
purchaser, in that they reresented that the article might he safely crie
melons and that it was true to label, whereasi4 W a e ... .. ... ... !ulii





melons and it was not true to label. I. th .. ,
On June 2. 1932, no claimant having appeal. for the property, *..
Of condemnation was entered all it waROrdereaby the court that the.
be destroyed by the United States matbral. ;: *be**
ARTa*ies M. it Secretary of Agr el t


Mislbranding of AII-Ni antiseptic auintl 'sbap. U. S. v.
nets Co. Plea of guilty. Defendant xapmpany placed
for six months. (I. & F. No. 15786. Dom. No. 30798.)
AllI-Nu antiseptic animal soap involved in this action wi
an antiseptic. It was further represented to be effective
and coats of animals healthy and free from vermin, and t'
for skin troubles such as eczema and mange. Examination
ticle would not be effective for the purposes represented;


containing the
ingredients, i.
article was int
in the manner
On April 18,
acting upon a


Court of the
the All-Nu P
shipment by
into the State
which was a


article wer
e., ingred&e
ended, were
prescribed.
1932, the U
report by


All-Nt .i
ontpPi


is r
e to
o be
n.-'sh
nthai
-that


short of the declared volume; and that
ts ineffective for certain purposes far
not declared, on th& label as required b3


eprese
keep.
t thei!] l
a pre .
6te4
th6
th@* _. .. v~~kLIfi
whlcl.
rlaw


united States attorney for the District of New J.n
the Secretary'of Agriculture, filed in the D|l


United States for the distri
products Co., a corporation1
said company, on June 9, 1
of Pennsylvania, of a quant
misbranded insecticide and


ict aforesaid an information a&a
trading at Camden, N. J., alle
931, from the State of New se
ity of All-Ni antiseptic animal
fungicide within the meaning ot


insecticide act of 1910.
Misbranding of the
that the statements,
Animal Soap *


artiel
"Anti
SThe


e was alleged in the information for
septic Animal Soap All-Nil
Antiseptid Prouerties in this Soap' "*


the ret
Anies
J*ic~i^


Nu Antiseptic Animal Soap is Especially Prepared for Keeping the Sldin H
Coat of Animals Free from Vermin' and in a HI
Condition, The Antiseptic Properties in this Soap are a Prevent
for Skin Troubles such as Eczema or Mange," borne on the label ',t
cans containing the article, were false and misleading; and by reason... .j
said statements the article was labeled and branded so as to deeeivn
mislead the purchaser, in that they represented that the article i
septic, that when used as directed it would keep the skins and coats of ~a
free from all vermin and in a healthy condition, and. Would act as a pH?
tive for all skin troubles such as eczema and mange; Whereas the said'..
wog nnt aftianltie Dnd when inifl anr direetsd it wmwild int kIAn fifha uflrT


1241.


to be
skins
tative
the ar


II




l": ..H..." ." ,.
. H ....i.. .
I f : . .
i;to,


3:
*1dI~
H


1f 1.i.~Si 1932, a plda of' tlj
: ,e ,the defendant co aA)

.t. -WAdilation and misbranl| "
'o :.^, .. tRe aa dust. U. S. v. .N
i i'..-H. ...= 'n W Fitl' ine, $2 .- (1. &' :~'
!:':::" .x ,-------- '%- :h_ ,' "' -- ".'-s
. w ",s.. .t was based oa an ii,
-...,awsan .ecticide, labeled S-9'
|i ,..ax sis showed contained mi
".tP ..rln. and monohydrate c
..- ...Pife1 : Ingredients (ingredients ia


'F *1FMEN T

to ei indarmation was entered, and
n sis8..Aths' probation.
EIuit. HYDE, Secretary of Agric'utuw
.r. .4"'


1


135

the


re


of S-8- Medina brand process copper
tork nameeticide Co. (Inc.). Plea of
. 1,46. Dom. No. 036548.)
Lte hipent of a product intended for
ina brand process copper arsenic dust,


qler proporti
'opper sulpha
)efctive., or


ons of copper, expressed as
te, and a larger proportion
insecticidal purposes) than


.' *.*t ....u.t 10, 1931, the United States attorney for the Western District of
St ortk acting upon a report by. the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
i. 3kt Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an information
S agatdst thb New York Insecticide Co. (Inc,), a corporation, Medinn, N. Y.,
a".etgig shipment by said company, in violation of the insecticide act of 1910,
H ..Q^..r about April 5, 1930, from the State.. of New York into the State of
:Michigan, of .a quantity of the said S-9, Medina brand process copper arsenic
,. iiati.,.which was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide other than Paris
.. giee and lead arsenate within the meaning of said act.
I: .Jt..Was.alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that
. Ltr,.tatements, "9% Copper .* Copper Sulphate (as monohydrate) not
: g ls^. than 25.0% Inert Ingredients not more than 59.0% *
I Tptal. Copper (as metallic) not less than 9.0%," borne on the tag attached to
Seackl..of the drums containing the said article, represented that its standard
;. an. quality were such that it contained copper, expressed as metallic copper,
|'i the proportion of not less than 9 per cent, that it contained monohydrated
! copper sulphate in the proportion of not less than 25 per cent, and that it
. contained inert ingredients, i. e., substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel,
.- ortt.mitigate insects, in the proportion of not more than 59 per cent; whereas
| the.strength and purity of the article fell below the professed standard and
::. Quality., inder which it was sold, in that it contained less than 9 per cent of
.":. copper, expressed as metallic copper, it contained less than 25 per cent of
SDmonokhydrated copper sulphate, and contained more than 59 per cent of inert
1.. n .adients.
i:: ...isbranding was alleged for the .reason that the above-quoted statements,
..: appearing on the tags attached to the drums containing the article, were false
~ai.:: .misleading; and by reason of the said statements the article was labeled
.. a~~n branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that they repre-
- -.ented,.that the article contained not less than 9 per cent of copper, expressed
II.a ..metallic copper, that it contained not less than 25 per cent of monohydrated
. Co~iper sulphate, and not more than 59 per cent of inert ingredients; whereas
I the..said article contained less copper, expressed as metallic, less monohy-
H. r.atd. .copper sulphate, and a greater proportion of inert ingredients than so
| *represented. ".
: On April 11, 1932, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf
| ot.,the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
|:brd' n .i o ATHUR M. HYDE, Seeretary of Agriculture.
I";.: Mis branding; of Lustrwax. T.,, v. r 6 Cartons of Lustrwax. Default
| -:*i*: .. degree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No.
| .-. 1568. S. No. 256.) ..






136


i I.
ii ..... .. ..


ACT


Elsbrauditg d wae tile
statements, to. witN. "Disia
Its disinfectant prp *
roaches and other ists. *
4' The Cleaning, Di' F. Polish
infecting properties gul, added .al
ing. Although LustiW i.i harmless
germs it is 4it able dii
adequate for all ordinadt sinfecti|
keeps premises safe as wd as beau
almost universally present at l tia
Disinfects In the bathroom
member, it kills germ-besuides bein
fixtures. Cleans,. eBshe, I
germs It disinfects ;:* .*


E mi the .*Xhe ...-B



. for t. ..i .
to ha .....-
fectant4. H*l;
'"E ealtb
II ... gj*****

purpose Its Tre .:"ni
ul, because, it ki er"i.
.* #: The (Seait
lone, Iotrwax a w rtta
g an. ZeelleJt cleanie fl
rx.4-P : a T...nadsp


barmless


except germs. It Keettnseets away ,* ..* ::.;1.
wax also drives insktpeste&wayfSI :,tish.ar.h D 4,.
to all life except insects '* hjile tt6Ieana W. ..
sects Although Lustrwax ii. harmas to all fliU7
* insects Repelling Insectas..Ants, roaches, wa.h. ;
other insect pests will not frequent prpises b here Lustrwax is :l-e
(and frequently) for cleaning and poliHshing.' Housewives report tb
by moths can be prevented by using, LustrWax once a week o C
closet floors and baseboards and the woodwork of upholstered furnitti.
also say that, although Lustrwax will not kill bedbugs, it will keep th1
if beds and springs are cleaned and polished with it. Ltstrwat ..
mosquitoes can be kept out of the house and that bugs atiuH
lights can sometimes be kept from becoming a nuisance if light buls .*
are rubbed with a Lustrwax cloth each evening. It is harmless .J : t *
all life except insects and germs It is harmless to all ot '|
of life is harmless to all life except germs &A, S.
(small circular) The Cleaning Polish That Disinfects Genubse tii
wax is the Cleaning Polish that Disinftcts LustrWax is tbe iit
scientific polish which cleans and dLnfects)' (from the streamerf"flU
fects," (letter to dealer) "Lustrwax thi cleaning polish that disinfreCt
Disinfects," appearing in the label, clrculars, streamer, and letter ,to
were false and misleading; and by reason of the said statements thlit.'
was labeled and branded so as to deceive and miles d the purA iar,
they represented that the article, when used as directed, would disitit'.
kill germs, would be an effective repellent against moths, roaches, ae3ii
bugs, bedbugs, and all insect pests, would be effective against alt 1
prevent moth damage, would keep mosquitoes out of the hooue and .
from lights, and that the article was nonpoisonolb; whereas the --
when used as directed, would not disinfect and kill germs, would not be
tive repellent against moths, roaches, ants, watetbugs, bedbugs, .i Si
Insect pests, would not be effective against all insects, would not .p.ri
damage, would not keep mosquitoes out of the house and bugs away trbtn
and the said article was not nonpoisonous. -.-
On March 21, 1932, no claimant having appeared for the propertHI
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by U. H.
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal. '...
ArTHaU M. HYuu $eeretary o.'..
.. .. ... .. ... ... ... n *An *** *


12,-4.. Minherndninf of Oidiodan. ***auna a.id IT_ S ... ihln rsA In_ _wa.L


tj~


r ...


.C.


n..




\ll. l ." '" .:
".*. H.::: .


SoF VGMENT
"Vb *


*il alleged in the kifor -
its, to wit, "The I
.*M*'i Closet A Cedar
mteMt .gl.loset from Destrued
S4Od a ...ar Fluid, abd the
ka tOdoira (edar Fluid for C<
.th Odort %edar Fluid The Sde
C:;.,..edar _aiet," borne on the c
. Band i misleading, and by rem
Wed aid branded so as to dec


1
I
I


137


**il
on that the. article was misbranded in that
oth Repelant Efficient S
Ht <.".* The Vapors emitted protect
j oths,"/' borne on the cartons containing
ents, to wit, "Use Odora Motholator
ite Moth Protection For use
c.. Moth Repellent Makes Every Closet
...'s inclosing the said Motholators, were
m.iof the said statements the article was


ive and mislead the purchaser,


sented that the article, when used as di
##othsi would protect the contents of
gL~e every closet as effective against
|V "unish cot plete moth protection, and
0tE .whereas the article, when used as
ie said .uro .ge


in that they


rected, would be efficient in re-
closets from destructive moths,
moths as would a cedar closet,
would act as a scientific moth
directed, would not be effective


.; fl : .ne W L*4a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf
H^ the defendant company and the court imposed a fine of $25.
:..= ATHUrR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.
-.i.s Apulteration and misbranding. of Favorite chlorinated lime. U. S. v.
Eb". ISO Cans of Favorite chlorinated lime. Default decree of condem-
.:..:::: '.... nation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 1586. S. No. 271.)


- examinationn o
ment lerein desc
i'..w and. that it
i effective ingredie
*;thsu represented


|[H. :.On May 4, 1932, the
II eti.g upon. a report
i:i::i.Urt of the United S
|i and condemnation of 1
allegeidin the libel tha
S..t Or about February


H iafintg been so transported it
.ipackages at Elizabeth, N. J., and


samples of Favorite


chlorinated


lime


ribed showed that the article was a
contained a smaller proportion of
nt) and a larger proportion of inert
in the labeling.


taken from


the ship-


fungicide as defined by
available chlorine (the
(ineffective) ingredients


jited States attorney for the District of New
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
es for the district aforesaid a libel praying
cans of the said Favorite chlorinated lime.
he article had been shipped by B. T. Babbitt
, 1932, from Albany, N. Y., to Elizabeth, N.


Jersey,
District
seizure
It was
(Inc.),
J., that


remained unsold in the original unbroken
that it was an adulterated and misbranded


Fjpgicide within the meaning of the insecticide act of 1910.
HAi:' dulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the
HIr.t.telaents, "Active Ingredients Available Chlorine not less
gredients not more than 76%," borne on the label affixed


WLitg the said article, represented thb
at it contained available chlorine in
i and contained inert ingredients,.
ty., repel, or mitigate fungi (bacter
WI cent; whereas the strength an
enssed standard and quality under


at its
the pr
i. e.,
ia), in
d puri
which


standard and
portion of n
substances th
the proportion
ty of the art
it was sold,


qu
)t
at
In C
icl
si


JAMs than 24 per cent of available chlorine, and more than 76
H bip^d~ets.
::. brand- g was alleged for the reason that the above-q
S.. .the can label were false and misleading, and by re
i.t.a eats the article was labeled and branded so as to de
H..rcaser, since the said statements represented that the
.i than 24 per cent of available chlorine and not more
Hi ::: mredients: whereas it contained less than 24 per


reason that the
than 24% Inert
to the cans con-
uality were such
less than 24 per
do not prevent
of not more than
e fell below the
nce it contained


per cent of


quoted sti
ason of
:eive and
article c
than 76
cent of


inert


atements
the said
mislead
onta ined
per cent
available


f








S.:


4.7


* :. -x ..E;:,:.
: ,, ,,,
* C ^p
4'i! :


* H .
., @ : ,,


3-


.111,..
IHU

~I ~M 1~

H iN


r


, I Al


- -"~* i!9'


4 *
~IIa I
H
H
1.-.-
--'a
* .A *
riFliKe H
.1 ... HH
'I
MY ur
':s HE H
H :H!~H1!~)
*
* Iih.hh *P~H.1*j*~3~,
A...
A


p.:
H'
S
'nv .*
~


All-Nu antiseptic animal
AU-Nu Products
Bordo lead arsenate:


Lucas Kil-Tone


NOTICES OF


N. J. No.


soap
Co --


Co-


Calcium arsenate:
Mosby, John, jr ----
Cedarte :.
CedrteCoddington, E. D.,

turning Co -
Chlorinated lime, Favorite:
Babbitt, B. T. (Inc.)


Cocksec spirals:
Langfelder, Homma
ward (Inc.)...
sticks:
Langfelder, Hommi
ward (Inc.)...-


I

L


Manufac-

--------


& Hay-


& Hay-
- Hay--


Cresolene:
Certifine Manufacturing Co.
(Inc.) ----------
Go-Fecto No. 1 :
Goulard & Olena (Inc.) .....-
Green Cross Beetle Mort :
Lucas Kil-Tone Co--------
Nico-Tone: .
Lucas Kil-Tone Co --------


H T


1241
1 2
1232

1230


1228

1245


1229


1229


1239


1240

1232.


[I:
Mathieson Al k a Ii Works
(Inc.)----------------


1226


Ideal' copper calcium
dust:
New York Inse(
Improved Kill-It. Bee
Kill-It:


*4 :4 ** : ::::
:: ::E:. '::
...^ : : n :4.Hi
--i245 r". H* :..

....iii
a:. ... .... i



arsenate lime .
;ticae .l..e 123 ..

Kill-It. ,*- *1 .
S. :...
tfl* 1--! *.:.,


aouto Jersey Cnemical uoq.
( Inc ) .-. .- --....---... .---
Lustrwax:
Lustrwax Co_-_.. ._---._. _
MacGregor's ant food:
MacGregor, J. D ------ ._
Mechifng's 75-5-20 dusting mixture :.
Mechling Bros. Chemical Co.
Medina brand dusting sulphur:
New York Insecticide Co-_.
8-9, process copper arsenice
dust:
New York Insecticide Co---.
75 lime 25 lead arsenate dust:
New York Insecticide Co_.-
sulphur carrier dust: .
New York Insecticide Co-........
emulsion :
New York Insecticide Co..a .
Odora cedar fluid :


l Ag
.



*.8

.* H


-1230
. Al-.
1288


123


4 4.".


Odora Co.- (Inc.)-- ..... _231,12@-
Peak deodorant and moth de- ]"+
stroyer: :.-:-..
Odora Co. (Inc.)-- ..... ---
Plantgiard : ..-. .2..
National Products (Iac.)--_ $128


: "": .ill

.4 ** :4
..:.. .:"+=*;,
:
.. '." *".::i
.. *;," ig| :**"ii
." ... .
* ..:.....
'p: B.. :..
Hid
Hj;Ell
j 1t", ";;;'I.^


H.
h.Im~


R.,,c......*1


INDEX TO


JUDGMENT


ifl


q




A .r ... ..
.1.' ..

4
14.i*i
ELF
I. ~ ...
*hii*
,:. jilt
*1*
*4 *H~~
.4.
H
*Pr


I.






t..
I.

LY.:.,. a






H
.Hi~L.h A.:
Jr
I.:;.........
=.~ :. .~i.


.7.
-.
a :.. .
4



I... .


). .i*
.::.j K.
V....




~ :1 .. U
I.:.
.,.. *...
'S ~. .Lti. *'r 4:


H
A
h.. I







~. 1/ *
'. 2


~ ~. ~
h~* *hA~H H
..j .:,. *h'
~ ~
a.
AN
t:. .~.

jinliliri. *IN~.m:n:~:. ii:. ~.i* I
hi
I.
Ii

4... H
H~ ii; -

h. C *h H.~







ra:tr :,~


.* /
..
re HI~ *
~ *u :.
.IHHn*
~
.win:
.1. ~r:H 4W.
-h
...



HL..III..:HhL..I *It..i
4
A *.*h 'N' ~.


*.~ j*h*.II* .
A...
4.-.....
-I.....

H
H



H":

V..



.4.
.. I~r .1



.. .\
hi... K
*:r.
.. 1. r.



..


.rr
.4 I.. I A.
t*.* -
.1
~:.
.1


r.
H.
I..
JLH.I -.
.. .. c : in"
I


:1,: H
I..
HI: .1



a
















UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


Utl ll3 1262 08582 478611II

3 1262 08582 4786


a
I;. .* WI-
a
Y 91:;!

.1


N.
..~ Hi .r t1r
S
A
-a


Si!!!


'K.


.ilil:: Iii i*
N .H ,i *H *N *H,, *
::.N ::::: .. .. ...
H H,,,,,, ,
H.: **::* H
*::*: **:::. ***H


S:E: ,,I i :
**. *: .:::* : ::::*
H"' "
A HH HI IHI

" ""::"


:' m:: .
t iiii
." H.'ii. I
"':..i ".. :. : ..
***" : ::...: :* ::*..:: .









."i:.*: ": "* *":*:: "ii
..." :H*** : :"



.*.. i ::. ...







*. : ::* H N r.
"i ..... ii'.ii. .
.. ... ..... ..** *** i








N ." :.. :: *, =-


N: ,. i
.:.: : ,,,' :
_C~h I* *, : ,, .
" -=i -. "-i ,ti II
"* .: **" .:" = li il







*i *S* H N*ni


.:A. L ...t...... ..
::" :: + +" ... .: *:: .' *::E"H f~'.

":H ".. .::: :::'EEEE:E -
-* "::" .:E: ."E.:Ei


-"a.,
~..Hr.
H


hr
'tt.


..: T ::ll?"!
* ."1 .::I "i
D I "

i". +.


...===...


- EEE i


---