[.G.vn pursuant to ectloio4 4 of the insecticide act]
, .th : "ecretar7y o Agricultur,
I 1t i. '
IdIwlteratlon and misabran
"(_Ine.), Trial to a jury.. l
Pow. No&. 20890, 25051.)
Swas based on two interstate
Samples taken from one of tl
*t5,.p .the active ingredients
uta than declared on the label
rrlpleseated ,that it would I
1. Tests conducted by this
the article would be an effe
Washington, D. C., March 30,.
llng of Boll-We-Ex.
Verdict of not guilty.
U. S. v. Boll-
(I. & F. No.
ipments of an insecticide, labeled
shipments were found to contain
rsenic) and a greater amount of
The labeling of both shipments
an effective remedy against the
department failed to substantiate
active remedy against the cotton
pet 9, 1929, the United States attorney for the Western District
1 acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricultyre, filed in the
Wtkff the United States for; the district aforesaid an information
alrW-W (Inc.), a corporation, Memphis, Tenn., charging violation
qide act, of 1910, It was alleged in the information that the said
$;hiipped, on or about Ma 7T, 1927, from Tennessee into Georgia,
titBoll-WeEx ,that was misbranded, and that the defendant com-
.. Ol on or about May 21;: 1928, from Tennessee into Louisiana
I .-WeEx" that was adulterated and misbranded.
..I.n the information thit the portion of the product shipped
.,,into. Louisiana, was. adulterated in that the statements, "Tri-
ete 61,2% Inactive Ingredients 36.2% Total
S.s -Aepic Pentoxide 85% as Metallic Arsenic 22.8%," borne
.hi. epmesented that its standard and quality were such that it
.~qe aruqmate in the proportion of not less than 61.2 per cent;
fl$ltol.amaneie (AtOs) 14 the proportion of not less than 35 per
*nttp total arsenic expressed as metallic arsenic in the pro-
.bustha 22.8 per cent, an that it contained inactive ingredients
4 hat do not prevent, d otry, repel, or mitigate insects, in the
.OW.bmore than 86.2 per unt, whereas it was alleged that the
10i. ws.. than 61t.2 per ce of tricalcium arsenate, that it con-
. :. per cent.of total ar nic (As.O), contained less than 22.8
...ruemc,, expressed as ]tallic, and contained more than 36.2
^f;j m:( ** 'I iu-_^^ *_tmH Hi _^t Hn __ _^
Klirts3^-Ck n~radirh~jw clihwwjj .nn ~bnA n15 f -irSh *__ V*l- -...
* '*1. I
Do not add all of the water at one, but a little at a tie iunti al
formed, then gradually add the rest:of the water, stirring constantly u
the water has been added and the ingredients have become thoroughly ii
Be sure to stir and strain the solution before putting it in sprayed, othbwt
the sprayer is liable to choke up. ::'Plant may be sprayed atlany ta m
recommend for small acreage the fountain compressed air sprayer, and to.i
tracts the American horse-drawn force pump sprayers, which we eai 1i *
at a nominal cost. The planter must be guided by the condition of hi 1
as to the amount of solution required per acre. Stir and mix thoroughly b
putting the liquid in sprayer. Complete instructions ai^O:.
inside;" (circular, first shipment) "Directions Read Carefully sr'n.a
Mixing Boll-We-Ex should be mixed in the field, as needed in the uni
(1) pound Boll-We-Ex powder to six (6) gallons of cold water.
should be added gradually until a soft paste is formed. To get tIhe.
this paste should stand five (5) minutes, then add the remainder at"
Spraying machine Mix as needed. Be sure to strain the soilfa
it goes into the sprayer. Applying Horse Drawn Sprayers A
is of the machine so that they fit your cotton rows, then adjust by s.
o that you get the proper amount of Boll-We-Ex to the plant. A
these simple adjustments you are ready to spray your cotton. Stl
Into tank. Hand Sprayers Strain the Boll-We-Ex Solution into #|
rough the funnel and strainer furnished, and then screw in plug. O
alve on air tube and proceed to pump up air pressure. When e
e is obtained close air valve and you are ready to spray
When pressure gets too low to deliver the poison in a mist rei
iping operation. Leave three or four inches of air space in hand sprd
ut spraying machines, thoroughly after using. When adjusting the
lve which controls the flow of liquid make the adjustment n that
vill throw out a fine mist to the cotton plant. If the liquid dflps .
being applied too heavily. Application Every farmer sj
Condition of his crop. The first application of Boll-We
made after the last chopping or just before your cotton t 4
weevils appear. Be sure and apply Boll-We-Ex a few
tion period. Plan your additional spraying so that you 9
24 gallon per acre, per season limit, if possible. From .
own experience as well as the experience of customers who have succO .
used Boll-We-Ex we have found that the average amount of BoHll-We-lB 1
per acre per season is 24 gallons. This of course depends upon the whtifl
festation of your field. During period of infestation, spraying should be ma
at intervals of not over two weeks. Boll-We-Ex should cost you approximat
$1.00 per acre per season;" (can label, second shipment) "One pound:i]
quart) of Boll-We-Ex Powder to six (6) gallons of water; mix in pasteTO
then add balance of water, Plant should have the first coat ,'i
the forms first appear and every fifteen days thereafter until four appl...
have been made;" (circular, second shipment) Boll-We-Ex should 1" *.
in the field, as needed in the proportion of one (1) pound of Bell..
Powder to six (6) gallons of cold water. The first appliucat i
Boll-We-Ex should usually be made after the last chopping or just bf(oi* t
cotton blooms, or earlier if any weevils appear. Be sure and apply Bol-W*fR
a few days before the migration period. we have found that .
average amount of Boll-We-Ex used per acre, per season is 24 gallons."
of course depends upon the weevil infestation of your field. During peril..
infestation spraying should be made at intervals of not over two.weekr'..*
On June 30, 1932, the case came on for trial before the court and a jury
nina nt* zr nti'v anararA nn huif nf Tim r afandnnl- 'nnmnua AIIr 'biB.
jeiim cb 8, 1932, the United SBtqtes attorney for the Eastern District
pWlt, .actipg upop a report b. the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
"...Swr. t of, the United States t.or .the district aforesaid an information
Ia** l sbacher-Siegle Corporation.'New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by
L wi n4ta violation of the insecticide act of 1910, on or about July 2,
tnu.eth.e State.,of New York into the State of Connecticut, of a quantity
Bald Ansbacher's Green Garden dust, which was an adulterated and
iSd insecticide other than Paris green and lead arsenate, within the
.g i sai act.
*i' .,.alged In.the libel that the article was adulterated in that the state-
., 'Anabacher's Paris Green not less than 12.5% Total Arsenic
|i.e as metallic not less than 4.5%,' borne on the label, represented that
itutir and quality were such that it contained not less than 12.5 per cent
* ^ green and not less than 4.5 per cent of total arsenic expressed as
w.heas the strength and purity of the article fell below the professed
a*dAnda quality under which it was sold, since it contained less than
_. i.St of Paris green and less than 4.5 per cent of total arsenic, expressed
|* in the end
* and truck
llons of wa
us and other
alleged for thi
Green not less
not less than
4.5% ,* *
* Total Arsenic ex-
Ansbacher's Garden Dust
certain biting insects on potatoes and
truck crops. Dry Application Punch in the semi
of the can and dust lightly on potatoes and other
crops. Wet Application Use one pound of garden
ter or three ounces to one gallon of water and
hardy vegetables and truck crops," were false and
slid by reason of the said statements the article v
., aj todeceive and mislead the purchaser, since the
uted that the article contained not less than 12.5 per cen
t Ipas than 4.5 per cent of arsenic, expressed as metallic,
Sdirected, it would control the biting insects usually fo
I ter hardy vegetables
' :|. 12.8 per cent of
aas metallic, and
|.tinsects itsually found
.. 'ptember 26, 1932, a
7f of the defendant corn
ras labeled and
t of Paris green
and that, when
und on potatoes
and truck crops, whereas the article contained
Paris green, less than 4.5 per cent of arsenic,
when used as directed, it would not control the
on potatoes and other hardy vegetables and truck
plea of guilty to the information
pany, and the court imposed a fine of $75.
HENRY A. WALLACE, Secretary of Agric
t fl" tefeation and mlsbranding of Ansbor-Green powder. U. S. v.
A flbdheriSftwle Corporation.. Plea of guilty. Fine, 950. (I. f
..K ..N. 15867,. Dom. Nos. 9711, 31196.)
Ts action was based on the interstate shipment of a quantity of Ansbor-
S' powdsr,1 Which contained Paris green as one of the essential ingredients.
rfinsatima sowed that the article contained a smaller amount of Paris green
a )belIed, als that it contained inert ingredients (substances ineffective for
p UpceO intended) in excess of the ainount declared on the label.
SAtugumt 25, 132, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Tek; acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
|* Oont of the United States for $be district aforesaid an information
list the Ansbacher-Siegle Corporation1 New York, N. Y., alleging shipment
g:6M eftpanyj: Violation of the insecticide act of 1910 on or about March 12,
ti.,:-AIrfnn.L 441. a vFnP WMTar VnIrlr int-n itha Rt-ni-a nPf Virorinis nf a niinHt-v
-. H;,:fliij Hj
* I *.H
.. ( .. ." : ... *:. iiiiii
Misbranding was alleged for the 4ason that the abo*e't4 .0.s
hearing on the labels were l fale' d mistueading, tadt t
article was labeled and branded s as to thove aSd' i1u the'
since the said statements representd that-jhe article entzgnd r' Au
38 per cent of Paris fleitn and ,iotobnore thn 53 per eat a iuer t. u
whereas it did contain less than 38'per cent of Paris green and aowe u
per cent of inert ingredients. :".. .. :./ ,'
On September 26, 1982, a plea of guilty to the informaion.:wlVs:|
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine o t *P$-i4:k J.|
SftEwz A. W .rACa, Seoret.ry of .A..N
". ** B" f ~. *J '~ 2!*" *
-' : :, ,
1249, Adulteration and msiabranting- ofa liAOr .r.eirubli e@Miomnms. .
v. Michel & Pelton Co. Plee 'f gq$ty. flea, Wh., (A I-..i
Dom. Nom. 12621. 12778.) "T- .:
This action was based on th
cresolis compound, the labels o:
pharmacopoeial standard, and i
had been substituted in part for
compound U. S. P. The inert
plainly and correctly declared on
.e interstate, shipment .of two loh .',i
f which represented that the art. ]
vhich contained certain coal-tar a iid.
cresol, one of the ingredients of liqjq .0
ingredients present in the article we.
the label. .
On June 14, 1932, the United States. attorney for the Northern DistiM
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, t. ILA.
District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid, an ibfapM
against Michel & Pelton Co., a. corporation, Emeryville, Calif., cha
ment in interstate commerce in violation of the insecticide act of. i
quantities of a product labeled "Liquor Oresolis Compound TU. S ,
was adulterated and misbranded. It was alleged in the information t*i.
defendant company had shipped a portion of the article on or about St
her 19, 1931, from the State of California into the State of Oregon, ai,
shipped the remainder on or about October 3, 1931, from the State .o,|
fornia into the State of Washington. '
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the ri
that the statement "Liquor Cresolis Compound U. S. P.," with respeist t*;:|
lots, and the further statement "Inert: Water 15%," with respect to tbei
tion of the product shipped September 19, 1931, represented that the 4
conformed to the standard for liquor cresolis compound as prescribed )
pharmacopoeia, and that the said portion contained water only as an in
gredient, whereas the strength and purity of the article fell.below the ztp.
and quality under which it was sold, since it did not conform to the. .Ht
prescribed by the pharmacopoeia, and the said portion contained glyceiin a|
inert ingredient in addition to water. Adulteration was alleged with rej
to both lots for the further reason that the label of the article rei
that it conformed to the pharmacopoeia, that is to say, that it contained,.
acid ingredient, cresol only, whereas other coal-tar acids had been .1s .
in part for cresol. -. ..".-,
Misbranding was alleged for the r
Compound, U. S. P.," with respect to
Water 15%," with respect to
d misleading, and by reason
and mislead the purchaser, s
rm to the pharmacopoeia, in
amson that the statement "Liquor ,.
both lots of the article, and the tPi
the lot shipped September 19% f.8[
thereof the article was labeled Sr.
ince the article in both shpea t.:.I
that other coal-tar acids haslibfl~i
part for cresol, and the portion shipped September 19, 1MJ1,"
as an inert ingredient in addition to water. -
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the portion of the article a
October 3, 1931, for the further reason that it consisted partially tfil
S tieson and labmranading of liquor eresolli compound.
uir.., :.O.-.alleon DXruam of idhuaor Cresolis Compouand. Cons
pee. of condemnation and forfeiture. Product released
'o4t. (I. A F. No. 1579. S. No. 263.)
4i 0Wvolved the interstate shipment of a quantity of liquor
I, the labels, of which represented that the article was of |
tandard, and which contained certain coal-tar acids which h
id ip part for cresol, one of the ingredients of liquor cresolis co
~ r,11, i 1932, the
io a report by th
U.ted States for t
S' -itf two .O-gallo
libel tlt the article
* :Deton Co., froze
been so transport<
U. S. v.
United states attorney for the District of Oregon,
ae Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court
lhe district aforesaid a libel praying seizure and con-
m drums of liquor cresolis compound. It was alleged
e had been shipped on or about March 8, 1932, by the
m Emeryville, Calif., into the State of Oregon; that
ed it remained il the original unbroken packages at
iAd4 Oreg., and that it was adhlteratnd and misbranded ii
..ide-act of 1910. .
ip alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in
ty fell below the professed standard or quality under v
1$ other coal-tar acids had been substituted in part for cr
branding was alleged for the reason that the article
.. .rp.olis compound U. S. P., whereas it was not liquor ce
* informedd to the United States Pharmacopoeia in th:
*had been substituted in part for cresol.
:Oetober 14, 1932, the Michel & Pelton Co., Emeryville, (C
tgq as claimant for the property, judgment of condemnatic
Ieptred. and it was ordered by the court that the product b
gtjigtunt upon payment of costs and the execution of a bo
j Enditioned in part that it should not be sold or other
unT to law.
WALLACE, Secretary of
. A2.4ulteration and misbrandting of Go-4, and misbrandi
m eedar moth balls, G & 0 moth deodorant eggs, and
S... deodorant compacts. U. s. v. 36 Cans of Go-4, et
:!S:.:.Aeeree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
.581. 8. No. 264.)
Siproducts involved in this seizure, action were intended f
of insects and fungi (bacteria). The product labeled Go
lFS a smaller amount of nicotine sulphate (one of the eff<
-.9a greater amount of inert material (the ineffective ingr
.~. n the. label. The labels of the remaining products v
S~false and misleading claims for the effectiveness of the
.g.inseets or fungi.
....* 21, 1932, the United States attorney for the Northei
.atij.gupon a report by the Secretary of Agriculturi
ltt of the United States for the district aforesaid a
.. .. d condemnation of thirty-six 1-pound cans of Go-4, 864
.. 288. G & O moth deodorant eggs, and forty-eight 1-;
i violation of the
that its strength
rhich it was sold
at other coal-tar
3alif., having :
n and forfeit
ie released to 1
nd in the sum
ng of G & 0
G & 0 moth
(I. & F. No.
or use in the
-4 was found
rere found to
article in the
rn District of
e, filed in the
G & O cedar
foundd cans of
*th deodorant compacts at Scheaectady, N. Y. It was alleged in the
Stls article had been shipped on or about February 10, 1932, by
atmna (Jnc.) from Jersey City, N. J., that having been so transported
.it.t .upold .Ithe original unbroken packages at Schenectady, N. Y.;
e ituecticides or fungicides within the meaning of the insecticide
was labeled as aforesaid so as toi
article contained less thas 10 per.;(
per cent of inert ingredients.
Misbrinding of the G & 0 cedar
the statements, (label on carter
Protection. In Cellars,
pellent to spiders and other insect
Moth Ball in closet, attic, *
place in linen closets, upholstery,
and (label on envelop) "Hang Me
Moths," were false and misleading
article was labeled so as to deceit
represented that the arti
protection against moths
against spiders and other
would not be effective for
Misbranding of the G
that the statements, "G & O Moth
Healthy Refreshing Atmosphere *
Kind of an Unpleasant Odor," borne
leading, and by reason thereof the
mislead the purchaser, in that they
reacted, would destroy moths under
freshing atmosphere, and would elim
not be effective
reason that the
were false and
to deceive and
when used as
On June 27, 1
that the product
ive and mimead ta Py.N f^S
of nicotlie ulphate aa. Sor. e f
j "..o t b w *.a' u t:.iewJ -
t) "Cedar Moth Ball .
G & 0 Cedar Moth Bails will $4:'
s Simplyb.ang the (p1
-. Or wherever cltethes are "tW.
* S Between blankets or o0 abl H
in your clothes Closet or wherevery'.u l
, and by reason of the said statemenitl
ve and mislead the purchaser, in tit t
i used as directed, would farnish$ ~
UI conditions, and would act as a rep
whereas the article, when used Ws di1n
deodorant eggs was alleged for the rMIt
Deodorant Egg Destroys Moths. Gro
* Invaluable for Eliminating M
on the carton labels, were false a'aNM
article was labeled so as to deceive *
represented that the article, use'-fl i4
all conditions, would create healthy,.
inate all odors; whereas the article WQ
for the said purposes.
of the said G & O moth deodorant
ntd rnnnyuri n Ir fl..nc daurt a, *
aLa. LCJAZAr-A I fay
Place aG G
* Make a
0 Compact in
small three (3
d insert a G &
G.. it4+. T
") incl slit in I
0 Compact," bo
s was alleged toi' l
* *S PRi
the. bottom .agd 1*
rne on the ean
and by reason thereof the article was labeled .
purchaser, in that they represented that the arti
moths under a
not be effective
932, no claim
be destroyed b
11 conditions; whereas the article, wh<
for the said purposes.
nt having appeared for the property,
was entered, and it was ordered by
y the United States marshal.
A. WALLACE, Secretary of
1252. Adulteration and misbrandlng of #2 Pioansol.
kinson (Commerelal Chemical Co.). Plea
(I. & F. No. 1588. Dom. No. 32602.)
U. S. v. .TJameu .
of gullty. Fiue, W
This action was based on the interstate shipment of a quantity of #271
1," a product which was represented to consist of pine oil with 15 pet eeS
water present as an inert ingredient. Examination showed that mineral
undeclared inert ingredient, had been substituted in large part frr p. ".
gust 17, 1932, the
ia, acting upon a
Court of the Uni
James H. Wilkinson, trading
Calif., alleging shipment by sa
of 1910, on or about January
State of New Mexico, of a qu
ted and misbranded fungicide v
s attorney for the Southern District
e Secretary of Agriculture, ffle& :'ll
r the district aforesaid an infn a
as the Commercial Cheaical Q&E
id defendant in violation, of thet.u
28, 1932, from the State of ,CallI
entity of #2 Pinasol," which. i
within the meaning of the said as tn
.jUiletwas. labeled so as to deceive andinislead the purch
lusa. represented that the article was a water-soluble i
lts. water only, as an inert ingredient, whereas it
al .oil, pine oil, snap, and water and contained mineral
L : in addition to water.
Swptember 80, 1932, the defendant entered a plea of gui
.and the court entered judgment imposing a fine of $
S n .order was entered by the court modifying the sai
the fine to $25.
J.: -"* *
aser, since the said
pine oil and that it
was a mixture of
oil as an inert in-
Ilty to the informa-
75. On November
d judgment, reduc-
rn Adulteration and misbrandlun of Aeme Bordeaux mixture. U. U. v.
. H.i "S Cases of Aeme Bordeaux Mixture. Default decree of condemna-
t,,.tiou, forfeiture, and destruction. (I. & F. No. 1590. S. No. 277.)
hkat action involved an interstate shipment of Bordeaux mixture, a product
ended for use in the control of fungous diseases of plants. Examination
We. that the article contained less .copper (the effective ingredient) and
It inert (ineffective) ingredients than declared in the labeling.
0aaJune 2, 1932, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
ma, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District
tt of the United States for the district aforesaid a libel praying seizure and
temnation of 26 cases, each containing six 4-pound bags of Acme Bordeaux
,.t was alleged in tl
^tuary 12, 1932, by
wnTie, Fla., that hav
Idalteration of the
e libel that the article
the Sherwin-Williams C
ing been so transported
at Jacksonville, Fla., an
within the meaning of t
article was alleged in t
Copper 12% %
the label, represented that the article
'Bot less than 12% per cent, and co
tstances that do not prevent, destroy,
rtion of not more than 87% per cent; w
tle fell below the professed standard
That it contained less than 12% per
ent of inert ingredients.
brandingg was alleged for the reason
*4 Copper 12%% Inert Ingredients 87
it haleading, and by reason of the said
to deceive and mislead the purchaser,
k and more inert ingredients than so
Nit fle 30, 1982, no claimant having
on or about
Bound Brook, N. J., to Jack-
remained unsold in the origi-
hat it was an adulterated and
insecticide act of 1910.
libel for the reason that the
ert Ingredients 87%%," borne
consisted of copper in the proportion
insisted of inert ingredients, namely,
repel, or mitigate fungi, in the pro-
'hereas the strength and purity of the
an'] quality under which it was sold,
cemt of copper and more than 8714
that the statements, "
A%," borne on the la
statements the article
since the said article
bel, were false
was labeled so
appeared for the property, judgment
(edimnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court
Hthe product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
3H. HENHY A. WALLACE, Secretary of Agriculture.
Adulteratlion and misbrandinug of tobacco
r.Pound Bags of Tobacco Dust. Default
forfeituree, and destruction. (238-A. I. &
1. action.involved a shipment of tobacco dust,
; antro1 of insects, which was found to conta
|Ie.((the effective ingredient) and a larger prop(
pats than declared on the labels.
t o 28.1932. the United States attorney
F. No. 1592.
S. v. Ten 100-
a product intended for use
in a smaller proportion of
portion of inert (ineffective)
t of Oregon, acting
WALLACE, ~eereiary (IT
Misbranding was alleged for the *eason that it was late l: '1:i
Nicotine not less than 1.00% Inert Ing. Ground Tobae.o not.T.mA.O
99.00%," whereas the article contained less than 1 per cent of. ntme a-.ds
than 99 per cent oT inert ingredients..- : .:.i
On July 18, 1932, no claimant having appeared for the property, ju5gma
condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the cQut |
the product be destroyed by the United States marshal. .: i.. .i
HENRY' A. WALLTACE, Secretary of AhuO
of earbolie aeid.
Plea of guilty.
U. S. v. MeKemson-Langley-ML
Fine, $50. (I. & F. No. 1595. C.
This action was based on the interstate shipment of a quantit y fear,
acid, an article used in the control of fungi (bacteria), which contained -
ingredients which were not plainly and correctly declared on the label
required by law. dii
On September 7, 1932, the United States attorney for the Northern Diutq
of California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed hi l
District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an information
against McKesson-Langley-Michaels Co. (Ltd.), a corporation, San .Frani
Calif., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the insecticide
of 1910, on or about February 9, 1931 and June 11, 1931, from the Stats.
California into the State of Texas, of a quantity of carbolic acid that 1y
It was alleged in the information that the article was mnisbranded in.*b.
it consisted partially of inert substances, i. e., substances other than ad
acid, that is to say, substances that do not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigl
fungi (bacteria), and the
stances so present in the
labels affixed to the bottle
were the name and pierce
article having fungicidal
of the inert substances o
correctly on the said labels.
name and percentage amount of the said inert
article were r
ot stated plainly
the said article;
of the substance
so present thereih
and correctly os.
nor, in lieu thej
or ingredient of U
the total perceati
i stated plainly a
On September 24, 1932, a plea of guilty to the information was entered M
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50. 'A.
HENRY A. WALLACE, Secretary of A.gricu.t.
1256. Misbranding of Reeves' Peatfoe. U. S. v. Four 56
of Reeves' Pestfoe. Default decree of conde
and destruction. (I. & F. No. 1596. S. No. 284.)
of the U
)-Pound Bags, eS l
nation, foree l L
tion involved the interstate shipment of quantities of a. p.
Reeves' Pestfoe. Certain statements in the labeling reptes
article would be effective in the control of insect and other .
t was valueless for such purposes when used as directed. The f
ely inert when used according to directions and failed to beat..
iner an inert ingredient statement as required by law. BI
y 22, 1932, the United States attorney for the District of ..
on a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Districtb.
united States for the district aforesaid a libel praying "it...o
tion of four 50-pound bags and forty-eight 5-pound cartons of:
It was alleged in the libel that the article had been s
commerce from Tacoma, Wash., to Oregon City, Oreg., that'.
ped in two consignments on or about February 2 (23),'ISt
1932, respectively, by the Growers Products Corporatioin,
ijul001. during the last few years has produced many truly marvelous results.
lhi. as-roper feeding of 'Pestfoe' with no other fertilizer and no spraying,
I ./flB,.. Peach, Plum and Cherry trees have been freed of insects, scale, and
i:gihi. and have produced almost perfect fruit. Hawthorn trees, roses, snow-
Vbiill. bushes, bulbs of various kinds, ferns, cauliflower, radishes, and numerous
SEI;'nber plants have apparently been made immune from the attacks of aphids,
*ns, rodents and other pests. It is not claimed that "Pestfoe" is a
Hg.u;i:.: te cure for all plant ailments but it has not yet failed when properly fed.
..I t a *- a st repellent. It is repulsive and repellent to
H...: worms and insects that Attack the roots. When carried to the bark
p: .italeaves it has a like effect on the insects that attack these parts of the plant."
1: '.On November 16, 1932, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg-
.:. .nt of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the
S" ourt that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
. .. .
Fj""': H,t -
1rI.T5,,Mitmbrandlng of Ilme-u
S and J. Alvey Long
S./ guilty. Fine, $250 a
This case was based on the
slution, a, product intended fi
S contained inert ingredients nx
4 required by law.
WALLACE, Secretary of
ulphur solution. U. S. v. Henry
(Hagerstown Spray Material i
A. Beater, jr.
Co.). Plea of
I coats. (I. & F. No. 1597. Dom. No. 42277.)
terstate shipment of a quantity of lime-sulphur
use in the control of insects and fungi, which
plainly and correctly stated on the label as
On October 15, 1932, the
acting upon a report by th
of the United States for th
Bester, ir. and J. Alvey
Material Co., Hagerstown,
.tion. of the insecticide act
United States attorney for the
e Secretary of Agriculture, filed
e district aforesaid an informant
Long, copartners, trading as th
Aid., alleging shipment by said
of 1910, on or about April 6,
District of Maryland,
in the Distri
1932. from 1
|H .f Maryland into the State of Pennsylvania, of a quantity of lime-sulphur
solution which was a misbranded insecticide and fungicide within the meaning
H of the said act.
l It was alleged in the information that the
i consisted partially of an inert substance, wat
i prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate insects or
. age:amount of the said inert substance so pre
Plainly and correctly, or at all, on any label
i tamining the article; nor, in lieu thereof, were
,of each and every substance or ingredient
(:H or fungicidal properties, and the total percent
1. therein, stated plainly and correctly, or at all,
; ,.: : On October 25, 1932, a plea of guilty was en
.n;... court Imposed a fine of $250 and costs.
.... [ HENRY A. WAL
article was misbranded in that it
er, i. e., a substance that does not
fungi, and the name and percent-
sent in the article were not stated
or tag affixed to the drums con-
the name and percentage amount
of the article having insecticidal
ge of the inert ingredients present
on the label.
itered to the information, and the
LACE, Secretary of
I:E 58. Adulteration and misbranding of D. L. S. dust. U. S. v. 33 Drums of
.. :. D. L. SI. Dust. Default decree of forfeiture and destruction. (Sample No.
i9 281-A. I. & F. No. 1600.)
II Tia case involved a consignment of D. L. S. dust which contained arsenic
..": ,'ad which was an insecticide, other than Paris green or lead arsenate and
Sfungicide. The label of the
. sent, the amount of arseni
.r et, as required by law.
ance that would be injury
f4 b'tann.nhat...6 1o Quo *t.a
article failed to state th
c in watet-soluble form,
Analysis showed that
ious to vegetation.
TTni4.aA G4a4*O4-, n-4nnn-artv -4
e amount of total arsenic
and the inert ingredient
the article contained a
nv. dha TflIow.n4n- n4" tMfnooo
m148 nt CIDE A u i
:.." ... ... ii" : i i i:
S. ::.. .. ~:.. .
SIt was further aUlleged in the libea that the' article -.wa
case of insecticides other than Paris ee and led d a .
in that it contained arsenic and dI not hae the total .a..,.A
expressed as per centum of meta arsenic, stated ml the Ibbl.'
further reason that it contained ar nic in water-soluble fotna anftf4
have the total amount thereof, epreseed as per eenttma of met ..tn
stated on the label; and in that it consisted partially of inert .eubstfl
stances other than sulphur, calciun4 polysulphide, calcium thioieZM 4'
lead arsenate), which said inert substances do not prevent, destroy,
mitigate insects or fungi, and did not have the name and percentage -
of each and every one of the said .inert substances present therein
plainly and correctly on the label; mor, in lithu thereof, were the uai
percentage amount of each and every ingredient having inae.tic.daj r dt
cidal properties, and the total percentage of inert ingredients, stateto@ i
On November 3, 1932, no claimant having appeared for the property, |
meant of forfeiture was entered and it was ordered by the court that tie.
be destroyed by the United States marshal.
WALL.ACE, Secretary of
Misbranding of Union fly oil and Carbleide. U. S. v. TUnie Co
Corp., J. P. S. Striekler and Dean G. Striekler. Deam .G. St4
arraigned; jury waived; plea, not guilty. Tried to the,-
Judgment of not gullly. Plea of nolo contendere entered. h :
S. Striekler. Fine, $30. (1. & F. No. 1540. Dom. Nos. 3391, 9627,
20167, 20168, 20169.) :
This case was based on the interstate shipment of quantities of Union I
and Carbicide, products intended for use in the control of insects.
nation of the Union fly oil showed that it was not effective in the cont
certain insects for which it was recommended in the labeling; also
was not harmless and was not 100 per cent active as claimed. Sampe
taken from the shipment of Carbicide and two of the three shipments of
fly oil were found to contain less than the volume declared on the label.:
On May 18, 1931, the United States attorney for the Middle Dist
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed&t
District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an infom
against the Union Control Corporation, J. P. S. Strickler, and Dean 0. ,Btt1I
all of Coudersport, Pa., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violal1
the insecticide act of 1910, from the State of Pennsylvania into thdW g
York, of qu
s of half-ga]
lent of gall
Union fly oil and (
n or about April 30
or about June 17,
Sof Carbicide on o
formation that the I
, 1930, an
r about .
t were mitS
oil, namely, S..
une 24, 1980 .m
quantity o. g
e 24, 19Ut..
that the statements,
Flies Away from Live Stock with
orses Also spray the stalls and manure pits," ".It d
will not burn the animal," and "100% Active," borne on the an.t
lse and misleading, and by reason of the said statements e i
eled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since they
article, when used as directed, would be an effective rene
ties of flies that infest or attack livestock, and would i i
be effective a
whereas the s
against flies in stalls and
would not burn the animal
aid article, when used as
t all variptips of fliops that
manure pits; t
and that it was
infpgt or 2t1osnrl
hat the i
100 per Cf
not be I
i June 3, 1931, when the case was called, J. P. S. Strickler had not been
i faded. Defendant Dean G. Strlekler appeared without counsel, was
|iOe4, entered a plea of not guilty, and waived a jury. No witnesses
'chled, and the court, after hearing statements by a representative of this
tment1 and by the defendant, found Dean G. Strickler not guilty.
the Harrisburg term of court held in December, 1932, defendant J. P. S.
iar was arraigned, and with leave of court entered a plea of nolo
il ere. On January 20, 1933, the court imposed a fine of $30.
A. WALLACE, Secretary of
. .teIabrandlBs of CarbllEde. U. S. v. J. P.S.
i:"..:.. aect Service (Inc.)). Plea of apilty. Fine
.. Dom. Nom. 30843, 30874.)
.. action was based on the shipment of a quantit.
Cabtcide, sample cans of which were found to co
DIlme declared on the label.
S..il 9, 1932, the United States attorney for the
,Ia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of
ct Court of the United States for the district
.nMt J. P. S. Strickler, trading as the Chemical
gcmery, Pa., alleging shipment by said defendant in
*|et of 1910, on or about May 26, 1931, from the Sta
$tate of Delaware, of a quantity of Carbicide that w
P 'was alleged in the information that the article was
tement, "1 Gallon Net," borne on the can label, repre
. cans contained 1 gallon of the article, whereas the
Stands were not plainly and correctly stated in terms
thereof,in that each of the cans contained less
t the Harrisburg term of court held in
- a plea of guilty to the information.
i sentenced to pay a fine of $20.
Strickler (Chemical In-
., 620. (I. & F. No. 1572.
y of an insecticide known
ntain less than 1 gallon,
Middle District of Penn-
Agriculture, filed in the
aforesaid an information
Insect Service (Inc.),
violation of the insecti-
te of Pennsylvania into
an 1 gallon
December, 1932, the
On January 20, 1933,
in that the
each of the
each of the
on the out-
net of the
f.:!: :"E':" :
g 3E:: :E :.:.
**"::: .. :....
P H I
A. WALLACE, Secretary of
JUDGMENT 'NOS. 12
Acme Bordeaux mixture:
Sherwin-Williams Co .-----.
Ansbacher's Green Garden dust:
Boll-We-Ix (Inc.) .....
Chemical Insect Service
(Inc. ....... -. ......--
Strickler, D. G.....------.
Strickler. J. P. S ----.-- 1259
Union Control Corporation... -
Co. (Ltd.) ------ --- --
D. L. S. dust:
G & 0 cedar moth balls:
Goulard & Olena (Inc.)....---
moth deodorant compacts:
Goulard & Olena (Inc.).---.
G & O moth deedorasflt-4Sf
eggs: ; .. ": i!
Goulard & Olena. (M"K.
Go-4 : "
Goulard & Olena (iVMt
Lime-sulphur soehtion: I :
Beaster, H. A, E..
Long, J. A--j-- E.j.3
Liquor creasolis cornponnd .s...,:"
Michel & Peito CO---".
Pinaeol: -- ; '.;i!
Commercial Chemical COo
Wilkinson, J H--.---- .
Reeves' Pestfoe: ; -..
1VERSFY OF FLO527
3 1262 08582 4794