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:
AA00008549:00025

Related Items

Preceded by:
Notice of insecticide act judgment

Full Text



v, H
I


.j.


Wi
EA* *ifl.
I.~2


4
L.*!*
V


.H

-..
*.l551-A$75


United


States


Department


Issued January, 1938


Agriculture


FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION


IT
f" *
x", "," ',P r ," ,, ." "/ 'f "

: ... T CES OF JUDGMENT'

""a.:" le '[' ::[i ". B:..:: "; "*
.. .=J;].:., [Given pursuant to
:..::... ... ,. ... '...... ...

": r" "
ii. ... s: :.
: hmi:i* .* : :
.*.::, *: ." ** : ."
***:**[ [ a .. ..
i.... ...
I:. .. -- ?


.. k JA teraton and misbrand
...........H :. .. tea~ and misbrand]
':......'" : ,...: -.. Plea of guilty. Fin
*" .::M pi:paoduct was represented
ii percentt of rotenone, but which
: sEthan 5 percent of rotenone.
^ .On March 24, 1937, the United
w w'.atfra, acting upon a report
..d. .dt$,ict ibturt an information ag
-.M tF .,W alleging shipment by said
.l teab-b'fNew York into the Stati
*.t-'S ani adulterated and misbrai


T


UNDER


THE


INSECTICIDE


Pu


ACT


Section 4 of the lusecticide Act]


1551-1575


Agriculture.


Washington.


D


uing of derris. UI. S. v.
e, $100. (I. & F. No. 1941.
to be derris, which cont
h in fact consisted of


States a
by the S
ainst R.
compa ny
e of Dela


ended


I.adl senate within the meaning of th


eged to be
containingg ii
did not con
for derris.
gth and pu


....: The article was all
,~4.te the barrels c
.9.lwhereas they
i. amtI.e : substituted
rI.. ia that the strewn
S. astaeurd and quality
ttt a minimum ol
S in's fpzqportion much I
::., Ite was alleged to b
otitnSi," borne on t
...y Bea at of the said
,. ': ew and mislead i
:... a.-.te.tain another
.:.. a 5 percent of
*: :::I ::
:E]ay"10, 1937, a
:ite court imposed
.. ::
:.'-' If: $5in. Adulteration ant
.. |.:.; (Taylor's Phai
-.:. ; -..... '" Sample No. 748(
-.: Irowas re


BAtture of carbolic acid


under


adul
t rep
tain
Ad
rity


which


percent


ess than 5
ie nmisbran
he barrels
statements
purchasers
substance,.
rotenone b


attorney for
secretary of
J. Prentiss
on or about
ware of a q


insecticide


'e Insectic
terated ii
resented t
derris but
ulteration
of the ar


was


of rotenone


other


. C., November 6, 1937]
R. J. Prentiss & Co.,
Sample No. 53975-B.)


gained
cube


the South
Agricultu
& Co., Ii
SJuly 23.
uantitv o


than


a minimum of
root containing


ern Disth
re, filed i
noc., New
1935, fro
f derris,


paris


ide Act of 1910.
i that the statement
hat the said barrels
Another substance,
was alleged for th
tile fell below the
1, since it was repre
whereas it contained


percent.
ded in that the statements "Derris
containing it, were false and mislen
the article was labeled and branded
since the barrels did not contain d(
namely, cube root; and the article


Put did contain


much


less t


ban


plea of guilty was entered on behalf of
a fine of $100.
HARRY L. Bowrl, Acting Secretary of


I mlasbranding of earbolie add.
rmaey). Plea of guilty. Fine,
)5-B.)
presented to consist solely of ca


and an undeclared inert i:


I


green


"Derris"
contained
cube root,
Le further
professed
;sented to
rotenone


Mil).
ding I
so a?
erris
did
percent


the defendant

Agriculture.


U. S. v. Samuel Goldstein
$10. (I. & F. No. 1958.


irbolic acid but consisted
inredient, water.


,p





344


IlT$SECTICID E


ACT


[N. J., I. F.


was


alleged


to be misbranded


the statement


borne on the bottle label, was false and misleading and by
meant the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead
it represented that the article consists solely of carbol
consisted of a mixture of carbolic acid and water. The
to be misbranded further in that it consisted partially of
namely, water, and the name and percentage amount of
were not stated plainly and correctly or at all on the label
containing the article; nor in lieu thereof were the name


each


substance


ingredient


article


(bactericidal) properties and the total percentage of the
therein stated plainly and correctly on the bottle label.
The information charged that the article also was
of the Pood and Drugs Act and misbranded in violation
Poison Act, reported in notice of judgment No. 27251 pub
act and notice of judgment No. 75 published under the l
On April 24, 1937, the defendant entered a plea o
imposed a fine of $10 covering all charges.
HARRY L. RnOWn, Acting Sec


1553. Adulteration and misbranding of carbolic acid.


shaw (The Mayflower Pharmacy). Plea o
No. 1959. Sample No. 74762-B.)
This product was sold as carbolic acid but consi
inert substance, water.
On April 7, 1937, the United States attorney I
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricult
an information against Walter N. Bradshaw, tra
macy, Washington, D. C., charging sale by said
Columbia on or about June 26, 1936, of a quantity
an adulterated and misbranded fungicide within t


"Carbolic


reason of said state-
the purchaser, since


IC
ar
an
sai(
aft
an
e h


I


acid; whereas it
tidle was alleged
inert substance,
d inert substance
ixed to the bottle
id the percentage
having fungicidal


inert substance present


adulterated in v
Sof the Federal
dlished under the
ritter act.
f guilty and th


retary of


UT. S. v.


If guillty.


Walter N. Brad-


Fine, $10.


sted in part of an undeclared


for
tire,
dingu
def<
y o1
he


the Dist
filed in
Sas the
endant i
F carboli
meaning


Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strep
below the professed standard and quality under which it w
represented to be pure carbolic acid, whereas it consisted i
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement "(
on the bottle label, was false and misleading and by reasi
the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the pt
not consist of pure carbolic acid but did consist of a mixi
and water. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that
of an inert substance, namely, water, and the name and p
the inert substance were not stated plainly and correctly
mor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount
ingredient having fungicidal (bactericidal) properties and
of the inert substance present stated plainly and correctly
The information charged that the article also was adu
of the Food and Drugs Act and nisbranded in violation of
Poison Act, reported in notice of judgment No. 27252 publish
act and notice of judgment No. 76 published under the latte
On April 7, 1937, the defendant entered a plea of guilty ai
a fine of $10, which covered all charges.
HARRY L. Bnoww, Acting Secreta


rict of Columbia,
the district court
Mayflower Phar-
n the District of
c acid which was
of the Insecticide


?ngth and purity fell
as sold, since it was
n part of water.
Carbolic Acid," borne
on of said statement
irchaser, since it did
ture of carbolic acid
it consisted partially
percentage amount of
on the bottle label;
of each substance or
the total percentage
on the label.
Iterated in violation
the Federal Caustic
ed under the former
r act.
nd the court imposed


ary of


1554. Misbranding
Pharmacy).
A- a^^^ k t


of carbolic acid.
Plea of guilty.


U. S. v. Morris Citrenbaum
Fine, $10. (I. & F. No. 1960.


(Park View
Sample No.


amount


Acid,"


violation
Caustic
former

e court


Agriculture.


(I. & F.


Agriculture.






1551-1575]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


345


water. Misbranding was alleged for the further
a partially inert substance, namely, water, and the
of the inert ingredient were not stated plainly and
nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage
ingredient of the article having fungicidal (bact
total percentage of the inert substance contained in
correctly on the label.
The information charged that the article also w,
thie Food and Drugs Act and misbranded in violu
Poison Act, reported in notice of judgment No. 2725
act and notice of judgment No. 77 published under
On April 7, 1937, the defendant entered a plea of
a fine of $10, which covered all charges.


reason that it consisted of
name and percentage amount
correctly on the bottle label:
amount of the substance or
ericidal) properties and the
the article stated plainly and

is adulterated in violation of
nation of the Federal Caustic
3, published under the former
the latter act.
guilty and the court imposed


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


1555. Adulteration and misbranding
Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine,
This product was sold as carbolic
inert substance, water.
On May 5, 1937, the United States
upon a report by the Secretary of
iffonnrmation against the Tower Pha
charging sale by said defendant in ti
1936, of a quantity of carbolic acid
fungicide within the meaning of the
The article was.alleged to be adua
below the professed standard and q
represented to be carbolic acid, wh
aad and water.


Agriculture.


of carbolic acid. U. S. v. Tower Pharmacy,
$10. (I. & F. No. 1956. Sample No. 74767-B.)
acid but consisted in part of an undeclared


attorney for the District of
Agriculture, filed in the
rmacy, Inc., trading at W
he District of Columbia on
which was an adulterated
Insecticide Act of 1910.
Iterated in that its strength
quality under which it was
ereas it consisted of a mi


SIt was alleged to be misbranded in that tt
on the bottle label, was false and misleadin
it'was labeled so as to deceive and mislead th
of carbolic acid but did consist of a mixture
branding was alleged for the further reason
of %, inert substance, namely, water, and th
bf',the said inert substance were not stated
thelabel affixed to the bottle containing the
the name and the percentage amount of ea
fungicidal (bactericidal) properties and the
stances present therein stated plainly and c
The information charged that the article
of the Food and Drugs Act and misbranded
Poison Act, reported in notice of judgment N
act and notice of judgment No. 64 published


ie statement "Carl
g and by reason
xe purchaser since
e of carbolic acid


that the arti
e name and t
plainly and
* article; nor,
Lch substance


cle c4
he p
corre
in l
or i


Columbia, acting
district court an
ashington, D. C.,
or about June 26,
Sand misbranded

h and purity fell
sold since it was
xture of carbolic

bolic Acid," borne
of said statement
it did not consist
and water; mis-
onsisted partially
erceutage amount
ctly or at all on
ienu thereof, were
ingredient having


total percentage of the inert sub-
orrectly on the bottle label.
also was adulterated in violation
in violation of the Federal Caustic
o. 27254 published under the former
under the latter act.


On May 5, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and
the court imposed a fine of $10, which covered the charges under the three acts.
IHARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


1556. Misbra,


Co.
county
1912.
The labels
their sterilizi
tions. They


ending of Apeo Nos. 20, 22, 25, S
Plea of guilty. Fine, $25 on
ts but the first and defendant
Sample Nos. 43734-B, 43735---B,
of these products contained fa
ng, antiseptic, and disinfectant
nontninpd inert inrepdipnts wh


gO, and 40. U. S. v. Ampere Products
each count. Fine suspended on all
placed on probation. (I. & F. No.
43736-B. 44076-B, 44077-B.)
ise and misleading claims regarding
properties, and other misrepresenta-
irh were not deelarerd on the labels.





346

would act as an effective
infectant for refrigerators
rants, etc., would keep ga
free from germs and would


INSECTICIDE ACT iN. I.,

disinfectant against bacteria and would a.c, as
, glassware, windows, mirrors, kitchen tables, .r
Lrbage cans free from flies, would keep toilet rooms
Ld destroy all germs and would sterilize, would didt-


feet drinking utensils, roosts, and dropping boards, udders, teats aud inside
of flanks, drinking and eating troughs, and hog pens; that the article was 10
times stronger in germ-killing power than carbolic acid or bichloride solution
and that it was nonpoisonous; whereas the article when used as directed, would
not sterilize and would not act as an effective disinfectant against bacter,
would not disinfect refrigerators, glassware, windows, mirrors, kitchen tab es'
restaurants, etc., it would not keep garbage cans free from flies, it wonl
destroy all germs and would not sterilize when used in and about
poultry, and dairies, would not disinfect drinking utensils, roosts, and dropping
boards, udders, teats and inside of flanks, drinking and eating troughs, it would
not be 10 times stronger in germ-killing power than carbolic acid or bic
solution, and it was poisonous. The Apco No. 25 was alleged to be mi
in that certain statements on the label affixed to the jugs were false ahd mi-
leading and by reason of said statements the article was labeled so as to
and mislead the purchaser, since they represented that the article w l
anthrax spores in 2 minutes, would disinfect artificial feeth and would acq4
effective antiseptic and germicide in the dilution of 5 drops of the arti
glass of water whereas the article would not kill anthrax spores in 2 minutes
and when used as directed, it would not disinfect artificial teeth and would not
act as an effective antiseptic and germicide in the dilution of 5 drops to 1 gins


of water. The Apco N
ments in the label were
the article was labeled


o. 22 was
false and
so as to


represented that when used as directed,
garbage cans free from flies; whereas
sterilize, would not disinfect, and would


to be misbranded in that certain g
ng and by reason of the said statements,
and mislead the purchaser since they
it would sterilize, disinfect1,
when used as directed, 4t w
not keep garbage cans free from fliest.


The Apco No. 30 was alleged to be misbranded in that certain statements
label were false and misleading and by reason of said statements, the ai
labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser since they represented that
the article would act as a sterilizer and as an effective treatment to kill bacteria,
and when used in a solution as a rinse, as directed on the label, would disinfectf
milk bottles; whereas it would not act as a sterilizer, it would not a
effective treatment to kill bacteria, and it would not disinfect milk bottles when
used as a rinse in the solution specified on the label. The Apco No. W X
leged to be misbranded in that certain statements on the label were fal
misleading and by reason of the said statements the article was labeled $0
deceive and mislead the purchaser since they represented that the arIl
used as directed, would act as a sterilizer and would completely sterilize yeas -
presses; whereas when used as directed, it would not act as a sterilizer and
would not completely sterilize yeast-presses. The articles were alleged to be
misbranded further in that they consisted partially of inert substances, namely;
substances other than sodium hypochlorite, and the name and percentage
amount of each and every substance present were not stated plainly and cor-
rectly on the labels; nor in lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount
of each substance or ingredient of the article having fungicidal (bactericidalt)
or insecticidal properties and the total percentage of the inert substances or
ingredients so present therein stated plainly and correctly on the labels.
The information charged that the Apeo No. 20 was misbranded further in
violation of the Food and Drugs Act reported in notice of judgment No. 27351
published under that act.
On June 25, 1967. a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and






1551-1575]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


347


an information


against


Spratt's


Patent,


Ltd., a


corpora t ion


hav ring


a place of


business at Newark,
June 11, 1936, from


N. J., alleging
the State of Ne


shipment
Jersey


by said defendant on or about
nto the State of California of a


quantity
fungicide
The art
below the
labeled "I
eat, water
It was
Water 87
of the saic
since it re
and eonta
contained
inert ingr
On June


of Spratt's Miralene which was an adulterated and misbranded
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
icle was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
professed standard and quality under which it was sold, since it was
nert Ingredient Water 87%"; whereas it contained an inert ingredi-
, in a proportion greater than 87 percent.
alleged to be misbranded in that the statement "Inert Ingredient
/," borne on the bottle label, was false and misleading and by reason


i statement
presented
ined wat
water in
edient or
25, 1937,


it was labeled so
lat the article con
in a proportion
proportion great
*edients other than
plea of guilty wa


as
tail
notl
er


o decei
ed wat
more
hnu 87


ve and mislead the purchaser,
er only as an inert ingredient,


than 87
percent


percent; whereas
and it contained


ii water.
s entered on behalf of the defendant and


the court imposed a fine of $50.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secrctarji of


Agriculture.


1558.


Misbranding of Moth Gas
Moth Gas Liquid Frost.
to charitable institution
27643-C.)


Liquid Frost. U. S. v.
Default decree entered.
s. (I. & F. No. 1987.


15 Dozen Bottles of
Product distributed
Sample Nos. 275S1-C,


This product was
-*On. April 17, 1937.
- 'acting upon a report
a libel praying seizu
Frost at Hartford.
state commerce on
New York, N. Y., at
of :1910.
It was alleged to
the bottle label, wn
quart but showed ni
On' June 14, 1937,
ing that the marsha


short in volume.
the United States attorney for the District of Connecticut.
t by the Secretary of Agriculture, tiled in the district court
re and con(ldenmation of 16 dozen bottles of Moth Gas Liquid
Conn., alleging that the article had been shipped in inter-
or about March 10, 1937. iy the Lew.v Chemical Co. from
id charging misbranding in violation of the Insecticide Act


C


be misbranded in that the
; false and misleading since


statement "1 quart,"
the bottles did not


borne
contain


n average shortage of 6.31 percent.
no claimant having appeared, judgment was entered order-
l remove the labels or destroy the containers and distribute


. the.product to charitable institutions.
HARRY L. BROWN, .AIting Secretary of


Ajlrieitlturv..


1559. Adulteration and
Plea of guilty.


This prod
'* powder for
,anid a larger
On March
Iidiana, act
district cour
shipment by
Indiana into
terated and


neuct, which
logs and eat


proportion of
12, 1937, the
ing upon a
t an iuforma
said defeuda
the State of


misbranded


nmisbrandiug of High-Jene.
Fine, $1. (I. & F. No. 1918.
was represented as an odor
:s, contained a smaller propol


inE
Ur
rep(
tionr
nt
Oh


?rt ingredients than
united States attorue
)rt by the Secretar
against James G.
on or about Novem
io of a quantity of


insecticide


within


declia
y for
'y of
Ln nd
Lanid
ber 1
High-


U. S. v. James G. Lander.
Sample No. 56146-B.)
less dry cleaner aud flea
rtion of active ingredients


red on
the N
Agrici
er, Ma
, 1935,
Jene, i


the meaning


the lk
other
ilture,
rion,
from
vhich


bel.
II District
tiled in t
Ind., allegi
the State
was an ad


of the Insecticide


of 1910.
The article was alleged to be


below


professed


can label bore the
pounds 2.70,,. iner


standard


statement, '
t matter 97.


adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
or quality under which it was sold, since the
'active ingredients: tuba toxin and allied com-
3," : wher' als the ir"iel enntainel native in-


S

I.
ii


I


h





348


INSEG]CIDE. ACT


I N. J.. I. F.


1560. Adulteration and misbranding of Penn-O-Pine. U. S. v. Roekland ChiW"
cal Co., Inc. Plea of guilty. Fie $25. (X & F. No. 1897. Sample No.
s67379-B.)
This product contained inert matter (water) in excess of the amount declared
on the label
On July 6, 1986, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey,
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court
an information against the Rockland Chemical Co., Inc., a corporation organized
under the laws of New Jersey, alleging shipment by said company on or about
November 15, 1985, from Newark, N. J., into the State of Pennsylvania of a
quantity of Pen-O-Pine, which was an adulterated and misbranded fungicide
within the meaning of the Insecticide Act 0f 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, since it was
labeled "Inert matter 9% per cent water"; whereas it contained water in a
proportion much greater than 9% percent.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement, "Inert matter 9%
per cent water", borne on the carton label, was false and misleading and by rea-
son of the said statement, the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead
the purchaser, since it contained water in a proportion much greater than t C
percent
On June 25, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant, and
the court imposed a fine of $25. 02


HAnaY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

1561. Misbranding of Magic Stock Spray. IU. S. v. Allied Drug Products Co.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $75. (I. & F. No. 1963. Sample No. 62
The labeling of this product contained false and misleading representations
regarding its effectiveness in the control of flies and other pests that annoy
livestock.
On March 3, 1937, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the...
district court an information against the Allied Drug Products Co., a corporat'QP


trading at Chattanooga, Tenn., alleging shipment by said
April 21, 1986, from the State of Tennessee into the State
quantity of Magic Stock Spray, which was a misbranded
meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the
borne on the bottle label, "Magic Stock Spray *
Horse Flies, Horn Flies Gnats, Wolves, *


company on or about
of West Virginia of a
insecticide within the
following statements,
* Kills Stable Flies,
* Flies are not only


a torment but carry and spread disease. Apply Magic (Stainles
Brand) Stock Spray, full strength, over the animaL Use a good Spray Gun and
give careful attention to spraying on head, legs, sides and under body. *
It adds very much to the comfort of Live Stock, to spray barns and stalls daily.
Repels Horse Flies .Wolves Fies are not only
a torment but carry and spread disease," together with the picture of a cow
being tormented by flies and a picture of a second cow being not so tormented,
also borne on the bottle label, were false and misleading, and were borne on the
said label so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, in that they represented that
the article when used as directed, would be effective in killing stable flies, horse
flies, horn flies, gnats, and the flies known as "wolves"; that it would give
fort to livestock when sprayed on barns and stalls daily, would be effective as a
repellent against horse flies and "wolves" that attack or annoy livestock, would
be effective in preventing annoyance and attack of cattle by all species of flies,
as implied by the pictures on the label; whereas when used as directed, it would


a






1551-4575]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


349


contain water as an inert ingredient; whereas it did not conta
bacteriological method of test was not applicable to the arti
physical nature.
On June 30, 1937, the United States attorney for the Nor
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fi
court an information against the Termo Chemical Co., Inc., Chi
shipment by said company on or about June 6, 1936, from the
into the State of Ohio of a quantity of Termos Disinfectant,
branded insecticide and fungicide within the meaning of the
1910.,
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the sta
Coefficient 2.0 Inert Ingredients-Water 10%," borne on the I
false and misleading and were borne on said label so as to de'
purchasers in that they represented that the article possessed n
of 2 and contained an inert ingredient, namely, water, in the


lin water and the
cle because of its


thernm
led in
eago, I
SState
which
[nsectii


Dis
the
11.,
of
wa:
cide


*trict of
district
alleging
Illinois
s a mis-
SAct of


tements, "Phenol
bottle label, were
2eive and mislead
phenol coefficient
proportion of 10


percent; whereas it did not possess a phenol coefficient of 2 since it was of such
a physical nature that it was not emulsifiable or miscible in water, the bacterio-
logical method of test was not applicable to the product, and it did not contain


any water.
SIt was alleg
;"Disinfectant
stories, urinals,
to each gallon


ed to be misbranded further in
* uses and directions for
etc.-One cup to gallon of water.
of water. Roaches, bed bugs, ant


to a pint of water," were fa
as to deceive and mislead t
practical disinfectant and
urinals, etc., and sick rooms
insecticide against roaches,
whereas it would not be effe
On July 6, 1937, a plea of
court imposed a fine of $50.


Ise and
he purcht
vould dis
when use4
bed bugs
ctive for
guilty w


that the following statements,
garbage cans, cuspidors, lava-
Sick room-One tablespoonful


S


s, etc.-One tablespoonful


misleading and were borne on sa
asers since they represented tha
infect garbage cans, cuspidors,
d as directed; and would act as a
s, ants, fleas, etc. when used as
the said purposes when so used.
as entered on behalf of defend


HARRY L. BRowN, Acting Secretary of


id label so
t it was a
lavatories,
in effective
s directed;

nt and the


Agriculture.


1508. Misbranding of Moon-Shine Washing Fluid. U. S. v. John Cordillo and'
Patsy Santonio (Moon-Shine Chemical Co.). Pleas of guilty. FPines, $50"
and costs. (I. & F. No. 1861. Sample No. 20810-B.)


SThe labeling of this product
effectiveness in killing germs a
Of fleas and in the treatment of
. On April 30, 1936, the Unite
Pennsylvania, acting upon a rei
district court an information
partners trading as the Moon-SI


bore false and m
nd bacteria and i
mange on dogs.
d States attorney


isleading claims regarding its
ts effectiveness in the control


for the Western


port by the Secretary of
against John Cordilo a
aine Chemical Co., Pittsb


I..
A

I!
I!.
Ii
I
ii:
iii'!;...
I'
III:



r
.11
.11
'H:...




H'!;

I4
V
I'

I!!


tab half full of water kills the b:
Fleas .Use three tablespoonfuls (
water. Bathe dog and rinse 1
-Moon-Shine to each gallon of soap water.
bottle label, were false and misleading and
labeled so as to deceive and mislead th_ p


t December
a quantity of
nd fungicide


10, 1
wit
wit


Agricult
nd Pats
urgh, Pi
934-, fro
n-Shine
bin the


District


ure, filed in the
y Santonio, co-
i., alleging ship-
m the State of
Washing Fluid,
meaning of the


branded in that the statements, "Gerin
One-half cup of Moon-8bine to a bath-


a


bacteria which produces odors.


f Moon-Shine to e
lange: Use three
Bathe dog and ri
by reason of said
urchaser since the


* *


*ach gallon of soap
tablespoonfuls of
:nse," borne on the
statements, it was
y represented that


meant by said defendants on or aboni
Pnnsylvania into the State of Ohio of
which was a misbranded insecticide a
Insecticide Act of 1910.
- The article was alleged to be mis!
Killer in the bath *


F





350


INSECTICIDE


ACT


1564. Misbranding of G. L. F. Quality Insecticide. U. S. v.
G. L. F. Mills, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I
Sample No. 7302-C.)
This product contained arsenic in gcobination and in the
and its label failed to state the amount of arsenic present, an
arsenic in water-soluble form, expressed as percentum of metal
label also failed to indicate the inert substances or ingredient
article.
On December 21, 19%6, the United Statqs attorney for the We
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricult
district court an information against the Cooperative G. L. F.


Collins,
from the
G. L. F.
meaning
The ar
bination


N. Y., alleging shipment by said di
State of New York into the- State
Quality Insecticide, which was a
of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
ticle was alleged to be misbranded
and in the elemental form, and the


[N.J., I. F.

Cooperative
F. No. 1954.


elemental form;
d the amount of
lic arsenic. The
s present in the

stern District of
uire, filed in the
Hills, Inc., North


defendant on or about July 6, 1936,
of Pennsylvania of a quantity of
misbranded insecticide within the

in that it contained arsenimc in corn-
total amount of arsenic so present


and the total amount of arsenic in water-soluble form, expressed as percent
of metallic arsenic, were not stated on the label.
It was alleged to be misbranded further in that it Consisted partially of inert
substances, namely, substances other than calcium arsenate and the name laid
percentage amount of the inert substances so present therein were not stated
plainly and correctly on the label affixed to the bag containing it; nor in lieu
thereof were the name and percentage Amount of each substance or ingredient
of the article having insecticidal properties and the total percentage
substances so present therein stated plainly and correctly on the label *
On July 20, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant nd
the court imposed a fine of $50.
HARY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agricu "ire.

1565. Misbranding of Crefenol. J. S. v. American Oil & Disinfectant Corpora-
tion. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F. No. 1909. Sample No. 50905-B.)
This product contained an inert ingredient and its label failed to india
name and percentage amount of the said inert ingredient so present.
On August 5, 1936, the United States attorney for the District of New Jerse
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district cbur
an information against the American Oil & Disinfectant Corporation, tradingA
Nutley, N. J., alleging shipment by said company on or about December 5, J9g,


from the State of New Jersey
Crefenol, which was a misbran
tide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be
inert substance, namely, water
said inert substance were not
label borne on or affixed to the
were the name and percentage
article having fungicidal (bact
the inert substance contained
on any label borne on or affixed


into the State of New York of a quantity of
ded fungicide within the meaning of the Inseci-

Smisbranded in that it consisted partially of an


', and the name and percentage amount
stated plainly and correctly, or at all,
drum containing the article; nor in lieu t
amount of each substance or ingredient
ericidal) properties, and the total percent
therein stated plainly and correctly, or
to the said drum.


On June 25, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the
the court imposed a fine of $50.
HA!RY L. BRowN, Acting Secretary of


defenda:

Agr"iculi


of the
n any
hereof
of the
age of
at al

t an,
lure.


1566. Misbranding of Oreolol Disinfectant, White Tar
Vaporizer. U. v. The White Tar Co. of w
ma. w-ne aW^. /W dr C ri t-. 4t fl-A 04 -.


Vaporizer, and Handy
Jersey. Inc. Plea of
ST A 4fl fl nr4e* f l fe


{






[qAST-IGgI


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


351


Jersey into the State of Penn
and Handy Vaporizer, which w
The Creolol Disinfectant was
'"Coef. 4 plus F. D. A. Test,"
article, was false and mislead
and mislead the purchaser sincE
Sosessaas n nhpnnnl onoffirinit n


S


sylvania of quantities of V
ere misbranded insecticides.
alleged to be misbranded i


borne on the l
ig and was bor
e the said state
f 4 nipuJ Fl


r ^^WkJ J U~ *4 JJ -J j &kf t --- ^ tj *k~ t^_ *, ^- tL *^~k S a J-T
a phenol coefficient much lower than 4 plus wth
The remaining products were alleged to be
statements borne on the labels were false an
the said labels so as to deceive and mislead
sented that the articles when used as directed,
against clothes moths, whereas they would
aarainst clothes moths when used as directed


Clothes
in conta
place in
garment
Use one
Close tij
Directio
thorough
airtight
zer for
On Jn


*.


I
*1
Ii


!


MOtts ana Larvae u irecions: n
iner by means of metal loop or with special
container. First thoroughly brush the art
s, woolens, etc., in an airtight closet, wardro
White Tar Vaporizer for every 35 cubic feet
ghtly"; (Handy Vaporizer) "Kills Clothes M
ns: Remove both covers and hang by loop or
hly brush the articles to be stored. Place gar


closet,
every
me 25,


wardrobE
15 cubic
1937, a 1


-, trunk O0
feet of to


r garment
tally encl


guilty


bag.
osed


Use
spac


was entered


abel
ne


of the
on said


4
Ii


.. -*-


.5. ~%. S -


Vhite


n that thi
dIrum .con
abel so as


Vaporizer


e statement
training the
to deceive


meant represented that the article
A. method; whereas it possessed
en tested by the F. D. A. method.
lisbranded in that the following
d misleading and were borne on
the purchaser since they repre-
would act as effective insecticides
not act as effective insecticides
: (White Tar Vaporizer) "Kills
a* __


move both covers. Hang


wire hook as pictu
idles to be stored.
be, trunk or game
of totally enclosed
oths and Larvae
pla)lce in container.
ments, woolens, etc.
one Camphorated
e. Close tightly."


on behalf


red; or
Place
nt bag.
space.
* 1'
First
. in an
Vapori-


of the defendant


and the court imposed a fine of $50.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting


Secrctai~j


A.grinicui ture.


1507. Adulteration
Co., Inc.
13316-C. i


and
Plea


misbranding
of guilty.


of Calgreen.
Fine, $25. (I.


Chapman Chemical
. 1972. Sample No.


This product cont
and total arsenic.
contained inert iug


gained sma
expressed
,redients i


On June 11, 1937, the
acting upon a report by
an information against
alleging shipment by sai
of New Jersey into the
which was an adulterat
the Insecticide Act of 19
The article was alleg


Unit
the


lle]
as
n
ed
Sec


r proportions of
metallic, than
a proportion gi
States attorney
retary of Agric


the Chipman Chemical Co.,
d company on or about April
State of South Carolina of


ed
10.
ed


and misbranded

to be adulterated


insecticide


that


paris green, tricalcium arsenate,
i declared on the label; and it
reader than declared.
Sfor the District of New Jersey,
culture, filed in the district court


Inc.,
21,
a q


Bound Rock,
1936, from the
uantity of Cal


within


strength


fell below the professed standard and quality under which it
the label affixed to the drums containing it, bore the statements,


not less than 25% Tri-Calcium Arsenate-not less than 50% In
ents--not more than 25% Total Arsenic (as Metallic)-not less
whereas it contained paris green in a proportion less than 25 percent
arsenate in a proportion less than 50 percent, and arsenic, expressed
in a proportion less than 2 percent, and it contained inert ingre
Proportion greater than 25 percent.
It was alleged- to be misbranded in that the statements on the
quoted were false and misleading and were borne on said label so a
and mislead the purchaser, since it contained paris green in a pro
than 25 percent, tricalcium arsenate in a proportion less than 50
senic, expressed as a metallic, in a proportion less than 28 percent,


N. J.,
State
greelln,


meaning


purity


was sold since
"Paris Green-


ert Inugredi-
than 28%"t
:, tricalcium
as metallic,
dients in a

label above-
s to deceive
portion less
percent, ar-
and it con-


*


-- -- m
v




-" ~


352


*f-^WSEOcil~~~i~TI'O~I$ < AOiT'n?


[N. J,, I. F.


court an information against William T&Simpkins, trading as the Simpkins
Manufacturing Co., Mount Vernon, Md., ieging shipment of said defgndan
on or about April 8, 4936, from the State of Maryland into the State of
Virginia of a quantity of Nock Outr Whih wass an adulterated and misbranded
insecticide within the meaning of the Iweeticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be adulte'$ted in that its strength and purity fell
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, since the
carton label bore the statements, "Actiye Ingredients: Calcium arsenate 16%
Sulphur 16%. Total arsenic, expressed ts Metallic 4.00%. Inert Ingredients:
68%"; whereas it contained less than percent r ot calcium arsenate, less than
16 percent of sulphur, and total arsenic, expressed as metallic, in a proportion
less than 4 percent, and it contained ixert ingredients in a proportion greater
than 68 percent. a:


It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Active Ingredients:
Calcium arsenate 16% Sulphur 16% Total arsenic, expressed as Metallic
4.00% Inert Ingredients: 68%," borne on the carton label, were false and
misleading and were borne on said label so as to deceive and mislead purchasers,
sinde it contained calcium arsenate and sulphur in proportions less than 16
percent of each, and total arsenic, expressed as metallic, in a proportion less
than 4 percent, and it contained inert ingredients in a proportion greater than
68 percent.
On May 20, 1937, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed
a fine of $10.


HA.RY L. BBowN, Acting Secretary of


1569. Misbranding of Bonide Dog-Zop. U. S. v. Bonide Chem
of guilty. Fine, $20. (I & F. No. 1952. Sample No. 6G
This product was an insecticide containing an inert ingre
tailed to bear a statement indicating the amount of the it
prescribed by law.
On December 9, 1936, the United States attorney for the
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agric
district court an information against the Bonide Chemica
N. Y., alleging shipment by said company on or about April
State of New York into the State of New Hampshire of a qua
labeled "Bonide Dog Zop Shampoo and Flea Killer," which
insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act of 1910.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it
of an inert substance or tineredient. nanielr. water, and the na


amount of said inert substance or ingredient so present there
plainly, or at all, on the label affixed to the tubes containing
lieu thereof were the name and percentage amount of each ax
or ingredient of the article having insecticidal properties
centage of the inert substance or ingredient so present therein
correctly on the label.
On December 9, 1936, a plea of guilty was entered on behal
and the court imposed a fine of $20.
HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Seoretari


Agriculture.


iEal Co., Inc. Plea
1448-.)
dient but Itslge
iert ingredient, as

Northern District
culture, filed in the
l Co., Inc., Utica,
6, 1936, from the
ntity of a product,
was a misbranded

consisted partially
me and percentage


in
th
id
sndt
St,


were not stated
e article; nor in
every substance
I the total per.
ated plainly and


f of the defendant

/ of Agriculture.


1570. Misbranding of Cedar-Wood Moth Fumigators. U. S. v. James G. Lander.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $1. (I. & F. No. 1928. Sample No. 57120-B.)
The labeling of this article bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its effectiveness against moths and other insects and failed to indicate the


inert ingredients present.


*Ln kTa..4lnn..w. flnd...4a4 nfl






1551-1575]


NOTICES


JUDGMENT


353


all other insects; whereas the article, when used as directed, would not be
effective for the said purposes: (Package label) "Cedar-Wood Fumigators for
Clothes Closets Instant death to Moths and Larvae. Burns like incense


and smothers every sta


of Moths


* Directions


week in a cup or saucer, keeping clothes closet, door clot
Wood Moth and Insect Fumigator Cedarize and Mothp


with Cedar-Wood Fumes G
proved'that fumigation is the
Moths and Insects instantly
human beings. Moths in Clot
SWoolens and Blankets before
eggs have. been laid thereon,
thing in a terrible condition
way to fumigate your clothing


in the clothes closet and


. .door closed for 15
.every-fold and co
keep your clothes
one piece of. Ceda
in Furniture. To
Moths, just throw


sure that


the sheik


Then burn 2 or 3


to 20 i
rner a
free f


guaranteed Effect
only Sure, Quick
. It burns like
hes Closets. Nev


ft


ive or m(
and Safe .
incense
er pack a


mnigating them well first,
on take a big chance, a
few months later. The
and Woolens is by placid


burn 1 to 3 1)
utes. The fit
smother all
i Moths and


pieces of Ceda
times will pen
Moths and L:
Larvae all tl


r-Wood in each clothes closet once
fumigate overstuffed Furniture,
a blanket or bed sheet over each
et reaches the floor and thereby c
nieces of Cedar-Wood under the


minutes before removing t
* The article was alleged t
substances that were inert
amount of each inert subs


he sheet."
o be nisbra
when used
stance prese


I


urn one piece every
; (circular) "Cedar-


roof every clothes closet
money back Science has
method of exterminating
and is not poisonous to
way your winter clothes,
otherwise if some moth
ud you may find every-
best and most effective


everything on a chair


r-Wood, keeping the closet
etrate your clothing, reach
arvae instantly. You may
ie year around by burning
a week. Moths
Piano. etc., infested with
piece of furniture, making
onfining the fumes inside.
sheet and wait 15 or 20


ended further in that it consisted wholly of
as directed, and the name and percentage
nt were not plainly and correctly stated


oi the label affixed to the box containing the article.
On,May.7, 1937, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed
a fine of $1.


HARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


:... 1571. Mibranding of Certified Sulphur. U. S. v. 48 Packages and
-- of Certified Sulphur. Default decree of condemnation and
e: (I. & F. No. 1983. Sample Nos. 35164-C, 35165-C, 37247-C.)
.^ The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representat
! ing its effectiveness as a disinfectant and fumigant when used as
. the label.
S.On April 2, 1937, the United States attorney for the Middle
. Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture,


Agriculture.


19 Packages
destruction.

ions regard-
directed on


District of
filed in the


district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 67 packages of Cer-
Itified Sulphur at Wilkes-Barre, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped
in interstate commerce on or about January 16, 1937, by the Purepac Corpora-
i tion,. New York, N. Y., and charging misbranding in violation of the Insecticide
' Act of 1910.


I The article was alleged to be misbranded
.. borne on the package label, "For disinfecting
Itug live coals or any other intensely heated
: .then throwing on the sulphur," were false and
-l.i.tatements it was labeled so as to deceive and
.:. rppesented that when used as directed it wor
Ifand as an effective fumigant; whereas it wo
'<:f oant or as an effective fumigant when use
.;i"at the article was also misbranded in viol1
unIIl'.itlarh in nH-inn nf -4nirlern*ant- Tnt O97IKT niuh


in that
and fun
mass in
mislead
mislead
ld act a
uld not
d as di
ition of
Iiabnr ii


the following statements
aigating: Prepare by plac-
a suitable container and
ling and by reason of said
the purchaser, since they
is an effective disinfectant
act as an effective disin-
rected. The libel charged
the Food and Drugs Act
ns nrsw ohnr +-


r




@Th~ ~ThTh~~<


354


INSECTICIDE


ACT


district court an information against Nalpier Emmett Johnson,
Steri Products Co., Kansas City, Mo., alleging shipment by said


about May 22,
of a quantity


1936
of S


meaning of the Inse
The article was
borne on the label v
it was labeled so as
that the article wh
would prevent the ti
specifications for ste
not be effective for
Food Specifications
Dishes Silverware
Bottles Pop Bottles
germs and odors
sterilizing purposes
Room and Dairy Eq
two gallons of water.
lize each glass after
* Beer Coils
Steriglass per galloi
oughly with clear w
Dilute one heaping t
clean, sterilize and d
Pure Food Specifica
Steriglass is a uniq
specific formula, foi
matter from beer gl


trading as the
defendant on or


* Steriglass sterilizes glasses and equipment, preventing the t
contagious diseases. Steri Glass Sterilizes *
* Sterilize Glasses Equipment with Steri Glass A
will last the average tavern 90 days, reducing the cost of cleaning at
ing glasses and equipment to approximately 2t per day, thereby mat
glass the least expensive of any and all chemical sterilizers *
meets all rigid Federal and State Pure Food Laws, stipulating the


transfer of
$2.00 unit
id seriTiz-
cing STer-

use of a


sterilizing chemical in washing and rinsing fountain, restaurant and bar e u-
ment."
The article was alleged to be misbranded further in that it consisted partially
of inert substances, namely, substances other than sodium hypochlorite and
<~~~~ x xx x xxxx xxxxxxx ..xxx:... ...... ^..M? xx .x...


sodium phosphate, an
present in the article
lieu thereof were th4
gredient of the article
percentage of the iner
the label.
On May 13, 1937, th
a fine of $50.


d the name and percentage amount of each in
were not stated plainly and correctly on the
e name and percentage amount of each sub
e having funigicidal (bactericidal) properties,
t substances present therein stated plainly anm


Defendant entered a plea of guilty and the


(


ert substance
label; nor in
stance or in-
and the total
1 correctly on

'ourt imposed


HARRY L. BRowN, Acting Secretary of


AgricUliure.


1573. Misbranding of Cretenol. IU. S. v. L. Sonneborn & Sons.
guilty. Fine, $25. (I. & F. No. 1913. Sample No. 41661-B.)
This product contained an inert ingredient and its label failed t
name and percentage amount of said inert ingredient so present.
fl..> A .- j r -1 flH'IO L ..^ TrT~.ta fl. rA j- ^ LJL ^- t.._, ti..^ lx!- .*-j_ A-


Inc.


Plea


o indicate the


, from the State of Missouri into the State of New York
Iteriglass, which was a misbranded fungicide
cticide Act of 1910 .:
alleged to be misbranded in that the ollowiug .staenients
rere false and misfading and by reason of said statements.
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they represented
en used as directed, would sterilize, would kill all germs,
transfer of all contagious diseases, and would meet pure food
rilizing purposes; whereas when used as directed, it woiilb
said purposes: (Label) "Sterilizes *M
Sterilizes Glasses Beer Coils Beer Boxes IceEoxs
Pots and Pans Toilets Bath Tubs Milk Bottles Beer
Milk Pails Cream Separators, Etc. Notice Steriglass kills
Steriglass meets pure food law specifications for
Sterilizing (Killing Germs) Beer Glasses And Other Tap
uipment. Dilute one heaping teaspoon of Steriglass in every
A clean clear water rinse may be used after sterilizing. Steri-
serving each customer. This meets pure food specificattons.
(* Sterilized). Dilute two heaping teaspoons t
n of water. Clean coils in the usual manner. Rinse Toi-
ater. Clean coils after each full barrel. Scrubbing Floors.
teaspoon of Steriglass per gallon of water. This solution wil
leodorize your floors"; (circular) "Sterilizes Meets
tions Have Sparkling Sterilized Glasses
ue new powdered chemical compound, maiufactured under
r the express purpose of removing all bacterial
asses, beer coils and other tavern and fountain equipment,






1551-1575]


NOTICES


OF JUDGMENT


355


having fungicidal (bactericidal properties and the total percentage of the inert
substance present stated plainly and correctly, or at all, on the label.
On June 25, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant and
the court imposed a fine of $25.


SHARRY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of


Agricultu tre.


1574. Misbranding of Iown'a Roup Remedy. U. S. v. Howard-lIowa Products Co.
and William G. Howard. Pleas of nolo contender. Fine. $40 and costs.
(I. & F. No. 1969. Sample No. 5128-C.)


The labeling of this product bore false and i
ing its alleged effectiveness in killing mites and


On March 25, 1937, the
Iowa, acting upon a report
court an information again
and William G. Howard,
January 9. 1936, from the S
of Iowa Roup Remedy, whi
of the Insecticide Act of 19
The article was alleged
gating will also kill all tl
building," borne on the aen
statement, the article was
since it represented that w


lice on
kill all
in the
The
of the
under


the fowls and a
the mites and
building when t


11 th
lice
ised


United States attor


by the Secretary o
st the Howard-Iowa
alleging shipment
tate of Iowa into th


ich was a misbrandi
10.


to be misbranded
he mites and lice


label, was
labeled so
hen used a
e mites and
on the few
as directed


misleading represent
lice on fowls and in
ney for the Souther
f Agriculture, filed ii
Products Co., of Jef
by said defendants
e State of Minnesota
ed insecticide within


in that the
that are on


S. 1v.
Pleas


I
.1
*1


statement
the few


tions regard-
buildings.
SDistrict of
the district
person, Iowa,
on or about
of a quantity
the meaning


"The
or


fumi-
in the


false and misleading and by reason of said
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
s directed, it would kill all the mites and
lice in the building; whereas it would not
Is nor would it kill all the mites and lice


information charged that the article was misbranded further in violation
Food and Drugs Act, reported in notice of judgment No. 27232 published
that act. On April 16, 1937, the defendants entered pleas of nolo con-


tender and the court imposed a
for violation of both acts.


fine of $20 and costs against


HARRY L. BROWN,


1575. Misbrandlng of Fly Trap Insectlecide. I1
Sam Edelutein (G. E. Specialty Co.).
(I. & F. No. 1965. Sample No. 8636-C.)


each defendant,


Agriculture.


Albert Granowitter
of guilty. Fines,


The labeling of this product bore false and misleading representations regard-
ing its effectiveness in the control of flies and other insects.
On April 30, 1937, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
district court an information against Albert Granowitter and Sam Edelstein.


trading as the G. E.
defendants on or about
of New Jersey of a q
insecticide within the
The article was all
SInsecticide Kills *
Spray ,freely upward
minutes if necessary
Insecticide is careful


Speci
t Ma
uanti
mean
eged
* *


until


alty Co
y 8, 1)3
ty of F
ing of t


., Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging shipment by said
6, from the State of New York into the State
ly Trap Insecticide, which was a misbranded
he Insecticide Act of 1910.


to be misbranded in that
Flies and Mosquitoes-
11 directions, filling room


insects


1


y prepared


bave dropped to
our laboratory;


hold insects. This Insecticide is by far
tion for instantly killing mosquitoes, flies, *
eggs. Where this Insecticide is sprayed no insect
affixed to the tin containing it, were false and m
said label so as to deceive and mislead the nurch


-- -a


-m -l .


th


i
E


'I
Ca'


the state
,lose doors
with vapoi
the floor.
it is a dest
e best oltai
nd other ih
a live," bot
?ading and


ents, "Fly-Trap
and windows.
r. Repeat in 3


Ii
ii:
IS


* This
wyer of house-
iable prepara-
icts and their
e on the label
vere borne on


.1

II


*I'


laser, since they represented


Arti ng Secretary of


r


(


.


i


t















INDEX TO NOTICES F


JUDGMENT 1551-1575

__ _V>


Ampere Products Co-


a


Bonide Dog Zop :
Bomnide Chemical


Calgreen:
Chipman Chemical Co.,


Ine-
Inc__


N
- -

* -

* -


Carbolic acid:
Bradshaw, W. N .-. .
Citrenbaum, Morris -----
Goldstein, Samuel ------
Mayflower Pharmacy ..
Park View Pharmacy
Taylor's Pharmacy ..
Tower Pharmacy, Inc -....--
Cedar-Wood Moth Fumigators:
Li. i r. ------- --- -


Crefent


Creolol

Derris:


Prentiss,


R. J., & Co.,


Inc~~


Fly Trap Insecticide:
Eidelstein, Sam__.__--..._-.
G. E. Specialty Co .-.-..
Granowitter, Albert-.. --...
G. L. F. Quality Insecticide :
Cooperattive G. L. F. Mills, Inc_


. J. No.
1556

1569
1567
1553
1554
S. f9
1552
1553
1554
1552
1555
1570
^ .:- y


1565
1573

1566

1551
1575
1575
1575
1564


Handy


Vaporizer :
White Tar Co. of New


Inc..


High-Jene:
Landor, .. ijxx x x-
Iowa Roup Remedy:
Howard-Iowa Products Co.
:KHowa d W : .. S .. .. ....- A ----......--
Magic Stock Spray: :
Allied Drug Products Co---- ....-
Moon-Shine Washing Fluid:
Cordillo, John -.--------
Moon-Shine Chemical Co .....
Santonio, Patsy-----_
Moth Gas Liquid Frost: o
Lewy Chemical Co----- -.
Nock Out: :
Simpkins Manufacturing Co -
Simpkins, W. T-...-.-------
Penn-O-Pine:
Rockland Chemical Co., Inc --
Spratt's Mitalene:
Spratt's Patent, Ltd-..--
Steriglass:
Johnson, N. E --------
Steri Products Co ----.


1566

1574
1574

1561
1563
1563
1563


1568

1560

1557

1572


-PureI~ac Corporation 1571- --
.. rgae r0or lo.......
Termox Disinfectant :
Termo Chemical Co., Inc.... .. 1562
White Tar Vaporiser:
White Tar Co. of New Jersey,
Inc ,--._-- 1560


Al


Apco:


N. J. No.
Jersey,


American Oil & Disinfectant
Corporation ---- -...
Sonneborn, L., & Sons, Inc-..
Disinfectant:
White Tar Co. of New Jersey,
Inc mr- :m- l mSn _- -- __ -P *-f-____ __


hur:








IIIA* .1..
IA

'C:.
.........


:1











'>~

H.
~J9.
'I,.

I.


V. *


I .1
*fl

IrE.
I-
I.





I!.':




I....









Ii.I:


I.
III
H



*
~I.
I-...





II

..I.

In!!.


U.-
iii.

II~1
;. .'
II. I

IL

t..














1111.




H.



.11


IL










I..



'~1~

:1
I."



*IIH*
.1. A* .1.
V
I,

H






V.


H..:






III~



'IH*.
V.
H







.1 .H..



~1!~I.






..I$ ~








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


i1111|1 1 1 1 | 11111111llll lli1 11 i1
I3 1262 08582 4919











*. .
m mmm

Vm



















/I



*m' -



*iM