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:
AA00008549:00015

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text












ent


H ~ 4
i. ... !. @ AN.**D
,'I..r ..
*x ,",, ,,, .. .. M :
y5^G. ..:T- .t O :l 'jvt ^ ^
S iI .A...


tip
'.1 ~ T


Agriculture


DEUG ADMWSATION


THE


INSECTICIDE


ACT


I .. ..:. i'. A- e "

.:' h. t- ", .* .

.... .. ."" 1 A"
i": *.. i" ** .*::...'r *
M: *i -A : _
.: = ..-"*- i *

j~Ht~t.I *.1 of Aa


4 of the insecticide act]


Run,


Washington, D.C., April 7. 1934]


Sat m.alksadlng* tf Acme 2 Way spray. U. S. v. Acme
ii ii.;:ea.l. l oC" k. .r lea of gatilty. Fine, $10. (1. & F. no.

i 1WR.fbed on an interstate shipment of Acme 2 Way spray which
-.eW t.b .uses, 4ss a*:upray for sour-cherry trees, and
*% e t Mrio t sour-eher. trees when usneed as directed.
l bqr fl, 192, the Ui te. States. attorney for the District of
tag uph a report by the B.tary of Agriculture, filed in the district
Vein against the Acm & white Lead & Color Works, a corpora-
at ,Portland, Oreg., allegi shipment by said company, in viola-
Jaieficide Act of 1910, ogt or about January 5, 1932, from the
sou 'toe the State of Wasiington, of a quantity of Aeme 2 Way
i S adulterated and misbra ded.
* 1 in the Information that the article was adulterated in that it
-* me on vegetation, namely, sour cherry trees, and the article
flj ..~nti upon sour cherry$ trees as directed, would be injurious
"s ^"S" ',. o !t


hew


SOged for the reason that the statements on the label,
I herit e, use 7 pounds of Aeme 2 Way Spray
te Or 10 tablespootfuls to 1 gallon of water", borne on
were false and .tisle ding and by reason of the statements
4'so a.s to. eceiv4 and mislead the purchaser, since the
asa u.leted nid not be used as a spray for all sour cherry
wnM quse serious jury thereto.
i3t a plea of guo to the information was entered on
iadant company, and e court imposed a fine of $10.
.. .. lL .TUG L, *Acting Seoretary of Agricultuwre.
:b


, "-....
* xse ;/
!! !


-Er ...-


I aisxbiaindin
U." SL s*v Pi r
B-. (I. At P. no.
a. am iutstate
r pqerti.ons


of euflsau
Dera Chantem
09. Sap le
ipmaht of.
f eAifrE
s^~~~ f/sw


ber, tomato, tobacco, andt
cal Corporation. Plea of
no. 9705-A.)
an insecticide and fungicide
k ingredients, arsenic oxide


W i" 4


hj'vwffc.










and quality were auch that it co ....ne-: j ... n ..'a
proportion of not less than .6 pere thi e
lent to metallie arsenic in the pti< ,.":.th
that it contained copper. sulphate. motPo ,rtb..
not less than 15 percent; wberean. 'wnwidt,
below the professed standard anA ....' y'l --I.. '|
contained less than 6 percent of .. .8ete ea o..,.
equivalent to less than 3% percent, d in t cotained J than
copper sulphate in monollydiate fto ri&i.- -.. *..i ...- .*'.
Misbranding was alleged for the r eason tht the statements, "
Oxide (ASO.) 6%, Equiv,. to Meta A. r'.iz5.4% -
in Monohydrate Form 15% ", borne on the. label, were false a
and by reason of the. maid statementsathe-.tiele walAbeled and.l
to deceive and mislead the purchaser Misbranding was' alleged fo:rT
reason that the article consisted partially .f inert substances ori
substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insect&,s..
the name and percentage amount of each'-and every one of the .a" WIiz
stances so present in the article, were not stated plainly and eorral4
on the label affixed to the drum containing, the article; nor, in.:.1
~~~ H* ^ k f i~
were the name and the percentage.;.anmowUt of eaebh .substance or 1i
the article having insecticidal or fuagieid$l preperti .an! the loti
of the inert substances present in the article, stated plainly and oeits
label : .
On May 30, 1933, a plea of guilty to the inftmation Was entered e jII
of the defendant company, and the court nmposi d a fine of $5. ....
R. G. Tvowt,4 Aflhvg Secretary of A .t*.VJ


.. s ~* ,*** .
127S. Adulteration and miubrandifgs of copperr calcium llImI adct. i
per lime dust. U. S. v. The Shefwin-WfIHanIm Co. Plea.. d u
Fine, s$o. (I. & F. no. 1613. Sample no. 20432--A,. 20433-A.)-, .... i-
This case was based on interstate shipments of a lot of copper -.
dust which contained less calcium arsenate, less arsenic as metat, td'
inert ingredients than the proportions stated on the label; also of lot "f
lime dust which contained less copper than declared and which ftaile. t
on the label a statement of the inert ingredients present in the artic.... H.
On June 8, 1933, the United States attorney for the District Ne :.
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in th4 b. r
an information against the Sherwin-Williams Co., a e.orporatfioi, '.
Bound Brook, N.J., alleging shipment by..said company from thle tatei.
Jersey into the State of Pennsylvania, on or about June 3, 19. .of ..
of copper lime dust, and on or about June 9, 19S2, of .a quantity .ef of
cium lime dust, which products were insecticides other th2 Pari -..
lead arsenate, and fungicides, within the meaning of the Insecticid* Aip sf
It was alleged in the information that the copper calcium 11i -
adulterated in that the statements. "Aetfiye Inredients: .* *..sei


Calc
than
the
not


*ium 14% Inert Ingredients
1 5.2% ", borne on the label
article were such that it con
less than 14 percent, that it


of not les
of not le
fell belov
*-. IJ- __ .


I
i


66% Contains Arsenic (as Metallic) f
, represented that the standard and qua
trained arteuate of. calcitumn. a the piporti.
contained, arsenic as metallic in the propO!


ss than 5.2 percent, and contained inert ingreintS in. tht proD
ss than 66 percent; whereas the strength and. purity of the
v the professed standard and qiality under which it was .sA


Je je







|p .::.&. H.
. i,, |, ,, ,,
, ,, .* ...
* ,,, *


g .*.
...... g.".. lime duse:wa Atljeged for the reason that the
-...lj^^.]20-807 botre., :oA the label, was false 'and
a!S of flie statement the article was labeled so as to
I 2..pnter. Mi branding of the copper lime dust was
tK'.tat the'a tieleconsistd partially of inert sub-
.. ||f that do not preufnt, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects
!.|r 1. udI'.ercentage .nount' f each of the inert substances
lwyere Hot stated p! inly and correctly on the label; nor,
|| the ia nme- nd percentage amount of each substance or
.* .I..a^cide having insects idal or fungicidal properties, and the
.tage of the inert substac.n so present stated plainly and cor-

..i9 S,' plea of guilty to he information was entered on behalf
*tcaft opany, and the court imposed a fine of $250.
**-~r .. ,. :. .:
S*3 *f. @" "* i : .: *
.-Ft G. TUGWEt, Aotmsg Seoretani of Agriculture.
,.. >. :..:." i *. .*
mon"Ik^ Xl-X *!"a .


spL. :.of Tarolfeetant.
.. Luee of destruction.
Ws based on an inter


U. S. v. 1 Drum
(L & P. no. 1616.
state shipment of


e~~ which was represented in its labeling to
St, -as a- control for vermin, and as a treatment
.ai- Z inmnation of the product showed that it was not
utt dtective for all vermin and all varieties of mange.
r4pril. 11, 1933, the United States attorney for the Dis
Sguvon a report by the Secretary of ,Agriculture, filed ii
.l :praying Beisure and condemnation of one drum


I, Minn., alleging that the article had


been shipped


of Tarolfeetant. De-
Sample no. 22116-A.)
a product designated


be effective as a
for mangy, scurvy
a disinfectant and


trict of Minnesota,
n the district court
of Tarolfectant at
in interstate corn-


ee, on or about
" Sioux City, Iow
g :. 1910.
"a-:l. alleged in
tg. statements
a xd misled
l.dfiedt the plac


March 4, 1983, by-the Sioux Oil Tar Disinfecting Co.,
a, and charging misbranding in violation of the Insecticide


the libel that the ar
appearing on the lab
the purchaser, since it
es indicated, it would


sNs| wM infest hogs, and would
,aa.: *f Disinfectin
'" .... I?. For Disinfecl
B..S!c where Chickens Roost.
r roost until they are com
d ...:.t Fv- mangy, scurvy
-,: .H g s.. Fo
*I ll!ai. :% 133, no claimant having
afdieri that the product be


d not
g Chi
ting C
Apply


ticle was misbranded in that the
'el were false and misleading and
was not a disinfectant and would
not be effective for all varieties of
act as an insecticide against all
cken Coops Disinfecting
chicken Houses and Brooder Houses
Tarolfectant to the walls, ceiling,


pletely covered as with paint or white
S* hogs For Scurvy,
r all Vermin."
appeared for the property, judgment was
destroyed by the United States marshal.


|A,,. H.,Fi,..i:,. "Ht (. GTVGWKLL, Aoting Secretary of Agriculture.
.H. n.nt .*d of Jol. U. S. v. 150.Packages and 75 Packages of Jol.
P '-3-f..., i eeree of conudemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
..... & i'. no. 1617. Sample nos. 33417-A, 33418-A, 38053--A, 38054-A.)
.... involved an interstate shipenent of a fungicide, labeled "Jol",
i'ii^.^eted to possess disinfecting properties. Examination showed
B.r..icl Would not act as a disi fectant when used as directed, also
contained less than the declared weight.
4..... "' the United States-' attorney for the Middle District of
ne.". h Tnn H rpnnrt hv tlhe Secretary of Aericulture. filed in


^












and misleading,an by eason of
so as to. deceive and mislead the .
seated that the.article, when used .d
that the packages. contained 5 onm :
whereas the article, when used as
the. packages contained less than S .
On June 28, 1933, no claimant haf lpg
condemnation and forfeiture was enter
the product be destroyed by the United


Udl a7et


e and 15 ounces, respeb..s
aer. ared .for t:e PrOpert,..
d, :Md it was ordered by tj %,
States marshaL ... '
h ....;* '


R. G. Tuewar., Acting Bowlery --of


1281.


Misbranding of Apinol. U. v
10-Ounee Bottles of Apinol.


,. -r"^ r""*
AA. L .--p *AAr *
: :* ,",- S ,,::,.
S5% Domen B3-Ounee Bottp
: IDefault decree of e ... '-


forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1020. Staple ng.
32666-A .) .. .. ..S.: .H... ..,.
This case involved an interstate shipment of Apinol, an inectiM.. ...,
the meaning of the law, which was represented to be nonpoisonous tpgnde
an effective control for a number of insects. Examination shobwedb
article was poisonous and that it would not be effective against erta|l
for which it was recommended. ii:
On April 28, 1933, the United States attorney for the Eastern
South Carolina, acting upon a report by the Secretary of AgricuItt4 I
in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of fve aiud.
fourths dozen 2-ounce bottles and ten 16-ounce bottles of Apinol at:S.i'.
S.C., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate eomtetee*C
about February 25, 1933, by the Apinol Corporation, from Wilmingti
and charging misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910. ... '
It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in: tbatY
a^F f *-OH*


appeE
(cart


lar)
not
Fly
+ CVa


1


hired on the labels of
on) "Apinol is a safe
"For it is not
o-rn +n ha A^l nha


have o
Infected
.- +thal


'US 15W*
unds *
17 nflT~n a


the cartons and in the circulars the state
, non-poisonous Is not a pois On",
a poison, Being nonpoisonous t
* will Keep insects off the stock.
* Treatment with Apinol has an added
niH S E mnainnut dnnm bA hnnsi


(El
.4
..
............................................i


atge1 i la L.I1 aL l.Cj1B Uia eL11. osqt u olUtj A.e IgtOf. "IAUCp *l,0
etc. the insects themselves cannot stand the fumes of Apisd.:
will be kept off entirely if Apinol is rubbed on the exposed skin. ..:.
a towel with Apinol and hang it up in the sleeping room at night or pput
on a handkerchief and leave it on a chair alongside the bed. MoEUt
not come near the sleeper. Apinol also keeps away motha"; whsa
article was poisonous, it would not keep all varieties of insects off i
would not be an effective repellent for all varieties of flies which attacM.
the article when used as directed would not keep off all insects that migi
included under the abbreviation "etc.", it would not protect a sleep I
mosquitoes, and would not be an effective repellent against moths, -. i*
On June 10, 1933, no claimant having appeared for the: property, j
condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the $ii$
the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.-:
R. G. TUGIwVUL, Acting Secretary of AriroMul
1282. Misbranding of Or!. U. S. v. 180 Paekages of Ort. Default de.
condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1&211l
no. 21368-A.) ..... :







jr 4


LtWLJDD4 'I.


1. ': 1 all kinGds *.,. Ori kills quickly and surely ", and
..spray all those places Where vermin, flies, moths, water bugs,
H. H t4l vja ants, etc. are to be found. In case of animals, thoroughly
.S"r or :.feathers with the highly efficacious Ori. Ori kills quickly
:ere .false and mnisleading,.'and by reason of the said statements
na labeled sb as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they
at.. the article, when used :s directed, would be effective in com-
SW olt and kining all insects and all vermin, and would be an
eeatiad:e against all vermin, flies, moths, water bugs, cockroaches,
S*ants, etc., and against insects that infest or attack animals; whereas
Soelz When used as directed, wotild not be effective for the said pur-
l -W branding was alleged for the further reason that the article con-
. .$ll1n.'og an inert substance, nainely, powdered pyrethrum stems, that
yM' a Substance that does not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects,
-tame and percentage amount of the said inert substance were not
..l .. and correctly, or at all, on the label affixed to the packages con-
'tbe article; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage amount
.. it*gredient of the article having insecticidal properties, and the total
....o f the inert ingredient so present in the article stated plainly and
"* "n the label.
l,.wine 2, 1963, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment
humnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court
Htb product be destroyed by the United States marshal.


R. G. TUGWELL, Atit g Seoretwry of


.. Adulteration and misbranding of Jay's cedar moth
.. v 144 Packages of Jay's Cedar Moth Compound.
I& of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
S::,E ample no. 21372-A.)
3*t~ination of the product involved in this case showed
S.. even.tive when used as directed; it contained no n
htt stied as one of the ingredients; and the packages co
P**lared weight.
'Eayy 15, 1983, the United States attorney for the Distri
.tpea a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, flk
a. ibel praying seizure and condemnation of 144 packa
twnjpornd at Somerville, N.J., alleging that the article
. ttafte. commerce, on or about March 17. 1983. by Str


SYork,
.H..dn the
.. S.leAged
li -t puri


Agriulitture.


compound. U. S.
Default decree
(I. & F. no. 1625.
d that it was not
aphthalene, which
stained less than


lct of New Jersey,


d in the c
ges of Jay's
had been s
auss Bros.


N.Y., and that it was an adulterated and misbranded
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
in the libel that the article was adulterated in th
ty fell below the professed standard and quality under


district
Cedar
hipped
& Co.,
insec-


mat its
which


O6Id, sice it was labeled, "A Combination of Cedar Wood, Naphthalene,
.r, 1Oil of Lavender ", and contained no naphthalene.
.jaig was alleged for the reason that the statements on the labels
IrtQns, "Net Weight When Packed 5 Oz.", "A Combination of Cedar
Wa*thtlene, Oil of Cedar, Oil of Lavender," and "Jay's Cedar Moth
SPer Closets For Upholstered Furniture An Excellent Moth Preven-
OCta The Best Results from Jay's Cedar Moth Compound Observe
l res: 1. Clean and brush all woolens, clothing, furs, etc., thor-
N. ipos to fresh air and sunlight for several hours. 3. Be certain
: 'ba stored are thoroughly dry and absolutely free from moths,
.I t- as before packing. 4.' Sprinkle layer of Jay's Cedar Moth


I..


t H'...


II


II


r.


Ba*;te_5C







168


.IBSE(


> ~** *.He *


*
*j.s .. I...


S..


wood oil, i.e.,
sects (moths)
present in thi
cartons; nor,
substance or
total percent
and correctly,
On July 15
of condemnat
that the prodi


... I
a substance that does t prevent, des
, and the name and uentage amount.
e article, were not state pla.ily and.e
in lieu thereof, were e nafe and p
ingredient of the a -e h..ving mselt
ge of the inert substaile so present in
or at all, on the cartM label.
, 1933, no claimant hating appeared ft
ion and forfeiture wasentered, and it
act be destroyed by th: Unted States
R. G. T vf, Acting .Bs


r$gitI
*
* ....
* ..-


,, ,
the article 7$
> r ;;* x; .... ::r
r the prott.
was ordered Y,
ars a .. t.
narshal. ...-


*.H
* .1!
~.- .5,


'ecretry of ..Ag


I-,.-
4**~* **V*


1284. Adulteration and mimbrandiag of Diamond 7 brar.,d Epuj"
U. S. v. Harry N. Leekenby. Plea of guilty. Fine, Sr.t
1630. Sample no. 25678-A.) '...


This case was based on an interstate shipment of an insecticide ."W"1j
tamed a smaller proportion of the active ingredient, barium fluohfedikt
declared on the label, and which was not labeled, as required by iS...
declaration of the inert ingredients present. ...
On August 21, 1933, the United States attorney for the Western
Washington, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, t
district court an information against Harry N. Leekenby, SeattN .
alleging shipment by said defendant in violation of the Insecticide Anet
on or about June 6, 1932, from the State of Washington into the SWi
Oregon, of a quantity of Diamond L brand flea beetle dust that was a.h9
and misbranded. ::.
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulteratsl4
its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and -qiaty i
which it was sold, since it was labeled, "Active Ingredient Barium .FP i
25% ". and contained much less than 25 percent of barium fluosilicate..*a


Misbranding w
tive Ingredient I
reason of the sai
and mislead the
barium fluosilica


article c
prevent,
of each
and corr
centage
property


insisted
destroy,
of the i
ectly on
amount
?s, and


as a
Bari
I sta
pum
te.
par
repe


nert
the
of th
the


plainly and correctly
On September 12,


a- -. --


* H
id

N
II'


alleged for the reason that the statement on the .UItil
am Fluosilicate 25% ", was false and misleading. ..
tement the article was labeled and branded so as t..
chaser, since it contained much less than 25. peqp
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason :
tially of inert ingredients, namely, substances thbt d.
l, or mitigate insects, and the name and percentage "
ingredients present in the article were not stand 1
can label; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name an4 p
e substance or ingredient of the article having iaeqt
total percentage of the inert substances pree...4.1.
on the label. ... ..1- 5
1933, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to .thi


tion, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
R. G. TUGW4L, Acting Recretary of A


. '
". *,y


n.j
A --
*:i~t..


1286. Misbranding of Coal Tar Disinteetant. U. S. v. Harley Sad
Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (L & F. no. 1632. Sample no. t
This case was based on an interstate shipment of Coal Tar.
which was found to have a phenol coefficient much lower than tat.
the label. '..


On August 30, 1933, the United States attorney for the Eastern
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricultupre,.
district court an information against the Harley Soan Co.. Inc.. Ph


.. ..


1
l(
<


V n


A


I




Em -
4-.
-
.,E.*.~" -
...
* -. Its'...
~*EL
in,-
-- -
-- --- C *
~--r


* H.:
A


NO'.OiES


OF JUDGMENT


169


.plttisn and .mlabranting of Be o paper. U. S. v. 10 Cases of
.. -/ageer. Detsaut decree of omtdemumation, forfeiture, and
ll.m. (I. & F, no. 1635. Sample no. 2345--A.)
,,, ^i. .vol. a shipment of Bromno paper, a fungicide within the mean-
: h"'Was: labeled to convey the impression that it contained
b toabri~he, chloralum (chlOral), and carbolic acid. Examination
1..tt Zt a.d not embody the properties of said substances, and that it
!|^::s!g sd deodorize, as claimed.
I the United States attorney for the Northern District of
S, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
.. belpraying seizure and condemnation of 10 cases of Bromo
..aI.Fran e Pa.isco, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped in
_.. comment,. on or about April 8, 1933, by the Diamond Mills Paper
New .York, N.Y., and charging adulteration and misbranding in
f tlie Insecticide Act of 1910.
J ..ll~gged' in the libel that the article was adulterated in that other
| had been substituted for bromo ebloralum and carbolic acid.
.rflnding was- alleged for the reason that the statements, (case) "Bromo
*e Medlicated Paper", (carton and leaflet) "The properties of Bromo
iam and -Carbolic Acid as disinfectants and curatives are well known,
.l, inventor has after a series of experiments succeeded in so embodying
es with the pulp of this paper", and (label and leaflet) "The
es of Bromo Chloralum and Carbolic Acid as disinfectants *
S-lu known, and the inventor has after a series of experiments succeeded
nbofdying their properties with the pulp of this paper, as to render its
...* a thorough deodorizer and disinfectant of the water closet",
alme and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser, since the
Sion was created that the article contained a compound of bromine
chlorall) and carbolic acid, and that it would disinfect and deodorize
closets; whereas it did not contain bromine chloralum chlorall) and
.c acid and would not disinfect or deodorize the water closet, or in any
j.ac as a disinfectant.
'~uIy 25, 1933, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment of
l zuation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that
10ag1cIt be destroyed by the United States marshal.


thnaltsrationa
8t.30 Odori
. k yLofeItiare,
^^ IiMatlact in
..Jte..I.oth
Hfi~A~i- gj' a-..4w*n^r^
4i5 a4Ltices
aut moth
lt be killed


R. G. TUWE.LL, Acting


Seoreta r of


Agriculture.


a and misbrandlng of Odora eedarized closets. U. S. v.
* Cedarlsed Closets. Default decree of condemnation,
Sad destruction. (I. & F. no. 1639. Sample no. 21367-A,)
this case consisted of a cardboard cabinet which was repre-
Sproof and to contain a substance which would kill moths
stored therein. Examination showed that the cabinet would
s, under all conditions, and that those present in the cabinet
i The substance placed in the cabinet to kill the moths con-


I~. ..mTwch smaller amount of active ingredients and a correspondingly
.amount of inert ingredients than declared on the label.
y..2. 1933, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey,
.i report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
|us. seizure and condemnation of 330 Odora cedarized closets at
.SI.tL-^mlegiug that the article had been shipped in various lots be-
'm.ruary 17 and July 15, 1933, by the Odora Co., Inc., from New York,
^B4homK.gathat it was an adulterated and misbranded insecticide within
Sa t. of the Insecticide Act of 1910.







INSIIO'


CtS. ACT


* *" ....
mmm av
vm- s <


^.: ::....".::
mm n H
* *, *


.. .. ..
Moth Eggs If Present When Gn (rtt jgAre -.Sto4.W'I 1'.
Construction of This .Chest Will Keip Moths (ut". it',
false and. misleading, and by reas of t.me aid' stempnil .
labeled so as to deceive and mislead jhe plurchaser, since '1-A
the article contained not less than 50 percent ct'active ingre iflh
than 50 percent of inert ingredientS and; when used as diretebi.
moths and moth eggs, and would keel moths out under all condijit l
the article contained less than 50 percent. of active ingredients ;ani..
50 percent of inert ingredients and, Wben used as directed, would tng
and moth eggs and would not keep nmoths out under all condition ..
On August 16, 1938, no claimant aving appeared for the profit
meant of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was oref!
court that the product be destroyed b the United States marshal. .
SR. G. Tuewnut. AotiMo eoretarw ofll


Mimbranding of copper lead lime dunt.
lihams Co. Plea of guilty, Fline, $25.
32544-A.)


C 0 -


.
* .. .
Ag;'


U. S. v. The .a,
(. & F. no. 1641.


This case was based on an intersta
an insecticide and fungicide which coni
drated copper and inert ingredients.
ingredients contained in the article we
by law.
On September 27, 1933, the United S
Jersey, acting upon a report by the
district court an information against
ration trading at Bound Brook, N.J.,
violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910
the State of New Jersey into the Stal
lead lime dust which was misbranded.
It was alleged in the information th
it contained arsenic in combination an
amount of the arsenic and of arsenic in
expressed as per centum of metallic
Misbranding was alleged for the further


te shipment of c
trained arsenic in
The presence of


.- .: : i
oppr lId lir
combination, u
the arsenic aS


re nuot state on me laub, an zj.

states attorney for the Distrit*l
Secretary of Agriculture, fflJe8t
the Sherwin-Williams Co., a
alleging shipment by said -.
, on or about November 14,
te of Florida, of a quantity ot .
'-


at the article
d in water-sol
Swater-soluble
arsenic, were
r reason that


tinially of inert substances or ingredients, i.
drated copper sulphate and lead arsenate,
not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate in
percentage amount of each inert substance
were not stated plainly and correctly, or
drums containing said article; nor, in lieu


was misbranded l:
uble form, and tb.
form so present U
not stated on tth:
the article eounsite


e., substances other
that is to say, subst
sects or fungi, and
or ingredient present
at all, on the label
thereof, were the r


centage amount of each and every substance or ingredient of the
insecticidal or fungicidal properties, and the total percentage
substances or ingredients so Dresent in the article, stated plainly


than
ancea (Ws
the namkN
in aihe ad

ame*
artid&
of tiM
and


or at all, on the label. .- ..
On October 6, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered e;xt
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25. -.,H:.
.. : ..:.:'. ..H::3


R. G.


TUowELL, Acting Secretary of


1289. Misbrandiag of Cedafume liquid concentrate. Il. S. v. fI5.lI
of Cedafume Liquid Concentrate. Default decree of 1o'1*
destruction. .(I. & F. no. 1642. Sample no. 39650-A.) .5:, -,::..*i
The case involved an insecticide, the label of which bore unwarrautoid
as to its effectiveness in the control of moths. ...." ..",


1288.


* "iini..3.ML.MAH


=





"I. ii.
H #mmm


TNOT.IES OFP JUDGMENT


:C ** .: ..: *:." *
-- ... .. .... *
... .K :..:.. ", ,
*gC^in3tr "."",. were false andc
..... aartiele was labeled so as
....epresented that the
llI ah tmotb custrol,
S',;.. whereas the. article,
.4ao Zuknlsh moth co
? a..eeaar chest.
teI.er. 8,. 1938, no claima
o tldture was entered A
i:e destroyed by the United
:.:I',f ^ -'; ** *: ". .-
"- "...' .. .R G .
;:| ^ : .
*|ultiubraaita wt oWiuard mot]
..t.Wfar&d Moth Oake. De
,..~la destr etios. (I. & F, x


....-tase involved an insecticide, the
Sj.lL .ectiveneug in the control of
.. August 10, 1933, the United Sta
Q fornia, acting upon a report by t
pe court a libel praying seizure an
Seake at San Francisco, Calif., all
I terstate commerce, on or about Jun
,:atd-charging misbranding in viola
.wt 12. .1933, an amended libel was
4h0 product, shipped July 19, 1931
S Ilgo,
Rwas alleged in the libel that th
...ent on the label, Gives off ga
Sclothing, delicately scents air in roc
I to deceive and mislead the pur
r.eted, would not repel moths and


I.


.itions.
W September 20, 1933, no claimant
of condemnation and forfeiture
.4 that the product be destroyed by
+ R. G. TuG


171


misleading and by reason of the said state-
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since
article, when used as directed, would check
Sand. would make a clothes closet safe as a
when used as directed, would not check
ntrol, and would not make a clothes closet

mt having appeared for the property, judg-
Lnd it was ordered by the court that the
States marshal.


'UGWE., Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


h eake. UI. S. v. 120 Cakes and 18 Cartons
fault decree of condemnation, forfeiture,
io. 1643. Sample n0os. 23392-A, 23896-A.)


label of which bore unwarranted claims
moths.
Ltes attorney for the Northern District
:he Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
d condemnation of 120 cakes of Wizard
eging that the article had been shipped
e 8, 1933, by Wizard, Inc., from Chicago,
tion of the Insecticide Act of 1910. On
filed in order to cover 18 cartons more
3, by the Midway Chemical Co., from

e article was misbranded in that the
seous vapors that repel moths and pro-
)ms, etc.", were false and misleading and
chaser, since the article, when used as
would not protect clothing under all


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


wELn, Acting Secretary of


Agriculture.


If..


L Mbranding of Cedarol moth-repellent wardrobes. U. S. v. 52
SCedarol oth-Repellent Wardrobes. Default decree of condemns.
. forelture, and destruction. (I. & F. no. 1645. Sample nos.
..,S". R'575--A. 44118-A.) p

Sproducet in this case consisted of a paper container for storing clothes,
S s represented to be a moth repellent, each accompanied by a package
* volatile substances represented to be effective to render the container
Lrof and to kill moth larvae present in clothing stored therein. Ex-
11 ._ showed that the article would not afford the moth protection claimed.
K|nst 11, 1983, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia
iuSpon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Supreme
*.. the District of Columbia, holding a district court, a libel praying
...&d condemnation of 52 Cedarol moth-repellent wardrobes at Washing-
a, alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce, on
..I*. May 20 and June 9, 193, by Gersten Bros., from New York, N.Y.,
...lung misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
allee In '- the libel that the article was misbranded in that the
IM tt-1" (iscrnBif -~h' 0 ^ 1 "r* Ti^.a i,, t.i-- _-* --


El --






172 1)M ajarSOio~ iE v^i

make the wardrobe moth proof a would EinotM-U4i-I!..
article was used as directed. C :
On October 18, 193% no claimant having appeat*AtI e: ^p
went of condemnation and forfeit! wasr antea'ti ..,.
court that the product be destroyed. .y the .utted ta..
". o. TW* *(74 Secretary "t. ?l

1296. Adulteration and mlIabhudai of Sunl-4-D. : S. ".'iV.
tIes of SuI-4-Dip. Default erdeg.o eoadcauumstlozi. t
destruction. (I. & F. no. 64 .. Spnle no..324 8-A.) .. .
This case involved a product intend for. use in the control of ta
and fungi (bacteria). Examinatioft showed that the a article M
smaller percentage of active ingredients and a larger .p'entag ':
dients than declared on the label, also that it would not be.
control of certain parasitic cain conditions and itches for which it wk
On August 18, 1933, the United taaftu attorney for the *
Jersey, acting upon a report by tt Secretary of Agricalitr "
district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 1il
of Sul-4-Dip at Newark, N.J., alleging that the article had beu .e
interstate commerce on or about February 21, 1933, by the Veterln""* "
Laboratory, Inc., from Jamaica, N.Y., and charging add t
misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910. ,M:
It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in ttH
ments on the label, "Active Matter 15% Inert Matter 85%," rer
its standard and quality were such that it contained substances -thit
destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or fungi, in the proportion of not le
percent, and contained substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or.
insects or fungi, in the proportion of not more than 85 percent; w',
strength and purity of the article fell below the professed standard-at
under which it was sold, since it contained much less than 15 percent
matter and much more than 85 percent of inert matter. .ei
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements "Activy
15% Inert Matter 85% ", borne on the label, were false and misleadUte
branding was alleged for the further reason that the statements, "-'or
Forms of Parasitic Condition Itcwhes, etc.", borie
label, were false and misleading, a epnd by reason of the said statemnMt
article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since 1J
not bete effective for all parasitic conditions indicted by the termn "FVdrC.
Forms of Parasitic Condition", and would not be effetty
conditions indicated by the term, "Itches, etc." Misbranding was ag
the further reason that the article consisted partially of inert ":.
and the name and percentage amount o the said inert ingredients
stated plainly and correctly on the label affixed to the bottle conta|
article; nor, in lieu thereof, were the name and percentage amont
and every substance or ingredient of the article having insecticidal or n
properties, and the total percentage of the inert substances or ingre
present in the article, stated plainly and correctly on the label. ;
On October 26, 1933, no claimant having appeared for the property,.f
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by.
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal. ."


R. G.


1293. Mlsbranding of Mothfume. W. S. v. 54
degree of condemnation, f#rfelture,
1A1 RnnmnIo Tna -nnu AA.LA1 GAATnuA 1


Cases of lothfmne. P
and destruction. (I"...I


Tufwr., Acting Secretary of


-V






~2i: *.r.*
H


NO."T IS .Q


UWIMZHNT


173


wI4it.^ the libel that the.article wis misbranded in that the
| o the tabel, "Mothfume moth repellant for use in
S.i., R. move the, rapper 9Dd Mothfume starts to work imme-
'. $i:' Mdttue kills moths aRd odors", were false and misleading
fi to &eoe and mislead the? purchaser since it was not a moth
.t:|Jwo jm.o kill moths under all conditions, and would not kill

l bi iti.ii claimant.having appeared for the property, judgment
forfeiture w&.se entered, and it was ordered by the court
dufe destroyed by the United States marshal.
c.4 ," ...*ZR.. G. Tuowmrt, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
ii.: C;iI .I I


e aof Moth Pad.
C. o.moemnation
.iE. tob.-e relabeled. (I,
ivolv9!-5 product th
f:"-^ J!?".- Th.


ie control
15, 1933,
ig upon
t a libel


cago, Ill.,
1 or about
Duquesne,
1910.


e.in ut
.4t epumber
li oi inot action
.itistrict court
ai.Pad at CIhi
S. .commerce, o01
g Co., from ]
ticide Act of
l.s alleged in the
~its, Moth Pad a
tbe wrapper and


UI. S. ,. 266 Cases of Moth Pad. Consent
and fortelture. Product released under
, & F. so. 1652. Sample nos. 36448-A, 36449-A.)
ie label of which bore unwarranted claims
L of moths.
the United States attorney for the Northern
a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
praying seizure and condemnation of 266


alleging that the article had been shipped
March 24 and May 11, 1933, by the Royal
Pa., and charging misbranding in violation


libel that the article was misbranded in that the
moth repellant for use in the household.
Moth Pad starts to work immediately", were false


Mleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the
wwas not a moth repellent. On October 9, 1933, Daniel Kovacs, Samuel
H.eu Martin Kovacs, Koloman Kovacs, and Joseph Weishaus, trading as


l"a Manufacturing Co., claimants, having admitted
I sand having consented to the entry of a decree,
F .and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered
ep4Ict be released to the claimants upon payment
t of a bond in the sum of $500, conditioned that it
vision of this Department.


R. G.


TUaGWrL, Acting


the allegation
judgment of
by the court
of costs and
be relabeled u


Secretary of


s of
con-
that
the
nder


Agrioulture.


i*k. ding of Apex moth eakes. U. S. v. 18 Doueu
.....fault deree of condemnation, forfeiture, and d
... noi 100. Sample no. 49455-A.)
I. involved an interstate shipment of a produce
kfill all stages of moth life. Examination shoi
-kill all stages of moth life when' used as directed.
27, 1988, the United States attorney for the
CIn4 g upon a report by the Secretary of AgriL
S it 2ibel praying seizure and condemnation of
... LC is, Mo., alleging that the article had been s
l ,inp it on or about June 12, 1933, and in part o
-:""Iean Home Products, Inc., from Chicago,
ng .. violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
I eged: in the libel that the article was misb
i't temenits appearing on the wrapper enclosin
IB-.ading and tended to deceive and mislead th
iig-Hir,:c.ills ,o li a yn., nF ,n' l."h lif (r


n Apex Moth
estruetion. (
t represented
wed that the
.


Cakes.
I. & F.

to be
article


Eastern District of
culture, filed in the
18 dozen Apes moth
whipped in interstate
n or about June 26,
Ill., and charging

randed in that the
g the article were
e purchaser: "Apex
hr*nna lra- Ics ciiflinionl-


I





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
llll~llllllilllliHllfillllllHil


3 1262 08582 4810

~ ~ i' 7. :i ~ .1 & A .. ...." il ..... .
.

L e l 1 :I "
** *,A,,* ,,.i *i"
H .'. *
.... .* 'I *: ." D .."

~: ~-. *,, '..: .": *+ .
... *.' ." ..:. .
: .. .... a *. : *.
*. *4, *. .. .. ] *; .. .*.*. _
NE:". I" .* .. .. .. g i***
INEXTONOTICES FzJJDGZDI i..

S* .2:%: .. ...,.
,:N"" i,+ TtJ


I


Acme 2 Way spray:
Acme White Lead & Color
SWorks _....-.__--.. ....-- --
Apex moth cakes: .
Clean Home Products, Ine--_


Apinol:


Apinol Corporation-------...
Bromo paper:
Diamond Mills Paper Co---_
Cedafume liquid concentrate:
American Chemical Products
Co.. In c..... ...-.-..... -
Cedarol moth-repellent wardrobes:
Gersten Brosa------- ----
Coal tar disinfectant:
Harley Soap Co., Inc...--.....-
Copper calcium, lime dust:
Sherwin-Williams Co --------
lead lime dust:
Sherwin-Williams Co--.....--- -
lime dust:
Sherwin-Williams Co--.---.. --.
Cucumber, tomato, tobacco, and egg-
plant dust:
Planters Chemical Corpora-
tion ----....--.. --..- ...
lIAY"


IT 1-I
* '*
I "V
1 6


1I1



1289S



it
I.

I391
1285

1278

1288




12 7
IIT
'I*
A


..
F Thamond tI brat a
"I 1 jk -^" "h k j "*-T i~T !u
l J.ay's : cedo.a ."...
.' Stttu *i -
2 e : == -! 1.. ..d


Moth


'i.nE
Mothfume: .*.,,. ...:
] Royal 0anufaijt
D q ue Eme......
Odoro cedariseM ctaetflAijil
Odora fp.. Inc..
Ouri: .' ; 5
..
I '
SSul-4-Dip: -"
PVeterinary .. rodupt.4
tory, ITc--... -
Tarolfectant: .:. :.'
Sioux 01, Tar,.
o .. *.. _. "
SWizard mo..k10'-
Midway i: Ceaal0
Ml* 1rMt