Notices of judgment under the insecticide act

I *
L.
* IL
.., :11.
I
rI'
I. 4
.4 S
.2W
I I:.
HII.
P.1. ~K


I.
4~*
V...:


Impued Augut 1S33


I:... ~
., *S ;j V
..H..r.
S
~ ~.j;: ~
H
:1;


4'
C ~;Ir
* bauc A*0115T as tow
CI
~ I...'..
4
4 ..
rrI
4.


liNDE


;,P .:.. ** .. : ":" i *. .
** i d ..


* :. ,i *i
*4 -3ect
t: E. .* *
.1.. =1


TIE INSECTICIDE


S4' of the inesticide act]


9." o-

|ecret of Agri lt Washington, D.C., August 2, 1933]
..." .' ,: ." .
.lll. tuM.Urenm reum Vetvwert. U.S. v. 200 Casemn of
R. .-^ ert. :oneat decree -t eondemnumtlon and
4....: e: :-,.eur bond. (I. & F. No. 1601. Sample
.3Et .. r. : / .^t ffai aK t- ,


. r k.


b ..EIpars Yetivert, involved in this
appearing on the shipping case and in


t.-.ea|d.,companyi the article, represented that it would
"*ifcot f.rqra m ha, whIreas it would not. The article
.. t, .i to beaon the containers an inert ingredient
.e led law: .
~i|ptmeS 80,. 192, the united Statep attorney for the northern
,tkp, aipo a. rdepo by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
:i. t e.Unitd Stats for the district aforesaid a libel pray-
Ioem|tin g. 200jtases of Genuine Empress Vetivert at
1*w;aUned .1 ..e liIl that the article .had been shipped on
t1962, by the Americin Phper Manufacturing Co., from New
WiIp*tate of jllitias, And that it was a misbranded insecticide
..fi. bthe Ingeeticide Act of 1910.
j ^tb.j l]el .that ..t article was misbranded and that. the
..l.a0 ahri. g in their beling were false and misleading and
"W ..the. aer-... ce the said article when used as di-
S.ela .fro mother: (Shipping case and circular)


b R- *
aIng porous, i
S....I* .It ,
'.ei. ert .
HI mol
.play card) "1
. tt. further I
Ip l)el did |


Think of the
Bow the odor
S* at. the
an efficient
P too!...* *
protect Tour 01
L~on'.that the
. bpar a stall


U


protection it wili
to escape and *
same time protects
moth repellant. Ei
*. it will insure
others from Moths."


give
* *


From
press
them
Mis-


article consisted entirely
Element of the name and


-alty t ., Ine., Chicago, .Ill., claimant,
twi and having consented to the entry
ad bort~ure wasentered and it was
iha, wa swSfi" ha +so I Ao nl o Imw a n, i 1n


Ix"
*1


culture


ACT


.. .III


Iowanatiq


t





^ ..- ^ .. -*. gg. liE~ ".B~t .S-i .* -* .: < : *: =.,
S" 1:. H'' .:t" .) :. *":'


upon a.m m
..$. as metaIlie, than .tatM On
flopo^ion ac inert ingredients than
Ot tober 28, 1e 2, the: T iteu
*. .**ThV sWc upon a report by tie
trtt court of the United BS.taes
Rfgahet the -hddgevillM Puer4~eL
". alleging shipment by said company
on or about August .1,. SlMTik
S.into the State of Maryland, of ant


HAIJ
It.


was an adulterated
ing of said act.
It was alleged:.n.
strength and purity
it was sold, since it
sulphate, less total
declared.
Misbranding was
gredients: Calcium


H;. 'tt*
k-i ~it*..


fare.


ii
li
:11


and miebranded


< ..:: tiog g
1-.-. i"f' f ..k. .:" "- 'e i I- a:n

S3hfromn the 8t4
%1.& "A" hran: b.
Ctbtdet and fuut :


"-.: = .: :l. :3=. :" :. ^ .^ ."
r ": ":' -
tMk 'iforni.tiG ne Lv.9 articAe t N
fell below the profesmed tandard and quality
contained less..calci.. arena less mo .qpa
arsenic (as metallice, and more inest 1
.' t ,.M' .*" ::"
:* a;.- *
alleged for the reason that the statement%
Arsenate 19.5%, Coppet Metallic (Mowhy


.7
*i


Sulphate) 19.5%, Inert Ingredients 61.0% m 'oa rseent
7.34%", borne on the tag attached to the bags containing the. ......
false and misleading, and by .eason qi. the said statement -.e-:
labeled so as to. deceive and "njled the. purchaser, sminee thh nt
less than 19.5 percent of eallurn at~enafe, it contafied less that-
monohydrated copper sulphate, it conDned less than 7.84 peHi.
arsenic (expressed as metallic), and cd.tained more than pe...
ingredients. ...
On January 26, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information H "j.
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a flqe'ies t :
R. G. ThawuaL, Acting Sexretary of4
,, ,. .. .,= .= i ..

1363. Adulteration and mimbramnelag o Calwpray t. t:: .* .
Pound Drum of 'C&lmpray No. 1" Default decree itr' dM
and dentruetion. (1. & F. No. 1598. Bample No. 18801-A ,).-=..;.:!: .S
This action involved the shipment of a quantity of Calispray No. :.H
ticide, which contained less nicotine and sulphur and more inert ..i.
than stated on the label. "I. ..
On September 7, 1932, the United States attorney for. the Dittict.;,dc
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the if..
of the United States for the district aforesaid a libel praying liu.a4.
demnation of one 25-pound drum of Calispray No; 1 at PhoflitdH-J
that the article had been shipped in interstate ciommweie.oe on eit'.
1930, by the Calispray Manufacturing Co., from Los Afgeles, .at_..i:
Ariz., and charging adulteration and misbranding in' vieithbn..OS H
.. / :.*.
Act of 1910. .. .. .* ....
It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in 't t ".
or purity fell below the professed standard or quality under o
in that it was deficient in nicotine and fliphnr, dnd .conthiuM .4
gredients than claimed on the label." '= '. "." i:.,.!..i
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statemeS Wd ..
"Nicotine, not less than 1.7%, Sublimed sulphtir, not less .t 7 .M
ingredients, not more than 28.3% ", were'false and mialeading ant.. ade
misled the purchaser, since the article was deficientmiA'nicotine p1h
and contained more inert ingredients thb* stated on the labehdL (t
On October 3, 1932, no claimant having. ppeated for the propdttj
of annddemnatton was entered and it wasi Aread hvthe enort th.





:*~%..r.:. *~Hq* *
H'
,. I'
k H
"V
I

I&~ot gw


NOTICES or


.e: United


I
J1JDGJ&ENT


States attorney for the


153


ni. .report by the Secretary of Agriculture,
United States for tde district aforesaid an


m.I... ..Bprayer & Obei
.... by -said:. comic
fl a t .p t.F17, 1981, fror
H..laaJnl |ptedIf F^n47ibratzded.
.. allege iR; the formation
i an pDurity $I below t
$i..l. A sold, since it. obtained
t,.acd. ..less .arsenic. (as met
l ,ldiig. was: alleged for the
...t Nicotine not less than 1.'
I. .4 :.less than .T.00%,. iert
- PQqtL.les than 1.76% ", born
.. ...!ieading, and by reason
jmap .branded so. as to deceive


.1
EN.
A::
H
H .1
*~IH I.
.1. *~H~ .H
H


mical Co., Inc., a corporation,
pany in violation of the Insect
a the State of New York into
igara 'All In One" mixture,


filed in the
information
Middleport,
icide Act of
the State of
which was


that the article was adulterated in that
:he professed standard and quality under
less lead arsenate, less sulphur, more inert


allic
rea
00%
Ing
ie o
n of
and


) than represented on the label.
son that the statements, "Active In-
, Lead Arsenate not less than 9.00%,


red
n tt
mth
Im


ients not over 15.00


ie cans containing the article,
e said statements the article
islead the purchaser, since the


.. represented that the article.eontained lead arsenate,
l gt., e. and arsenic (as metallic) .in the percentages decla
irtye.ingredients consisted of nieqtine, lead arsenate, and
as.:thearticle contained less lead' arsenate, less sulphur,
H-. tuj *and Less arsenic (as metallic) than represented on
. -AtlB ingredients consisted of copper (expressed as metalli
t :tl.e active ingredients which were declared.
s F...ebrjary 20, 1933, a plea. of guilty to the information w
.b3: of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine o
:.i.=- ., '- R.. -G. T--i, Acting Secretary of
i. t T:: na:-.xfAt'i a:


EU
I..:
'I.


.* .h : .


m .Adulteration and misbranding of pine
. R- Q.aO-.*ifllon Drum of InduAtrial Pine D
:., ....oad.emnation, forfeiture, and dest
;" "fo; 2eq.)
jt action .involved the interstate shipment c
lhe oil disinfectant. Examination showed th
U"ed ifla.art for the article; that it sdid not pos
Ied i .the.labeling; and that the inert ingred
I etprreetly.declared on the label.
tI. Aprml 1, 1932, the United States attorney;
J ,. acting upon a report by the., Secretar
cwUrt of the United States for the dist
.and. condemnation of one 30-gallon drn
Was alleged in the libel that the arti
aoimerce on or about January 14, 1932, b
St aalti"more, Md.,. to Waynesboro, Va., th
iained unsold in the original packages at
.,an adulterated and misbranded !fungicide
jetide Act of,1910.
.. teration of the article was alleged in the
W t.t," Industrial Pine Disinfectat *
at.Pbenol Coefflcient of 3 plus",torne on
*Mag....the article, represented th at was a


.ha re coefficient of 3 p
o.ge eosed., standardrd and
ur e A, q. .oral oil and
>*' alf 1 US *T~ A -^il_


oil disinfectant
isin feetant. D
ruction. (I. &


sulphur,
red, and
sulphur
more ioe
the label


Lelae


I


were
was
said
inert
that
only,
rt in-
. and


c) in addition

as entered on
f $25.
Agrioult ure.


t. U.S. v. One
efault decree
F. No. 1577. S.


f a product represented to be
at mineral oil had been sub-
sess the disinfecting properties
clients present were not plainly

y for the western district of
y of Agriculture, filed in the
riot aforesaid a libel praying
im of Industrial Pine Disin-
icle had been shipped in inter-
y the Industrial Laboratories,
at having been so transported


Waynesboro,
within the


Va., and
meaning


that it
of the


libel for the reason that the
* A soluble Pine Oil Disin-
the label affixed to the drum
pine oil disinfectant and that


lus, phereas the strength of the article fell
quatt.y under which it was sold, in that it
Spi n : oil disinfectant and had a phenol co-


[

I
















toxic; it was not more effective than tnny cmon disikeant I.
article, when used as directed, would not aet ;as an excellent. i.l
douche or a dip for animals, would not disiufet when med It a. 4kbi" ..
would not disinfect drainage pipes, and would not disinfect troW. n...
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason Sat the artdel .
tially of inert substances, namely, water and mineral oil, whie. sb A
not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fungi (bacteria), and the-lmfe--Mf...
centage amount of each and every one of the said inert subrtfaieel. man
the article were not stated plainly and correctly on the label; t$, ISV
thereof, were the names and percentage amounts of each and every
of the article having fungicidal properties, and the total perettage Ue@.
ingredients present in the article, stated plainly and correctly n thebtlaebW^iv.
On November 1, 1982, no claimant having appeared for the propettt
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered..by ...
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal. ,i...


.'


R. G. Tuownia, Acting eretary of A


1266.


Adulteration and miaabrandifag e aaleiam arsenate.
L. Mosby, Sr., and John L. Momby, Jr. (John L. Mosby
guilty. Fines, 920. (I. & F. No. 1569. Don. Nos. 36679?


7 ... asjJ~.:r HH::H:HI
.1*
JA H
ILK. v~ -
i~.lwrI -
HNJfl


This action was based on two interstate shipments of a product which ,
represented to be calcium arsenate and which consisted of Ita n.sept....'
lime. The inert ingredients, the amount of arsenic, and the amount of aj "
in water-soluble form, were not plainly and correctly stated on the, ....
required by law. '.
On May 16, 1932, the United States attorney for the western district& f
nessee, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filej-
district court of the United States for the district aforesaid..a .n n
against John L. Mosby, Sr., and John L. Mosby, Jr., trading as the' I.
Mosby Co., Memphis, Tenn., alleging shipment by said defendants. I th.
of the Insecticide Act of 1910, on or about July 25, 1931 and Aug t
from the State of Tennessee into the States of M issiaippi and r
respectively, of quantities of a product labeled.." Oalci4m Arte","
was adulterated and misbranded. ... ...
It was alleged in the information that the article was ad1tet"t a.d .. .
its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and gqaulit
which it was sold, since it was represented to be calcium arsenae AM .'i ."
fact lead arsenate and lime. Adulteration was alleged for the fithe fl...
that lead arsenate and lime had been substituted for calelum *aitmt@ 6.
Misbranding was alleged for the reasoS that the statement Caleuism .
nate ", borne on the label, was false and daisleading, and for the fartI.f t*.
that the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purheias ...
branding was alleged for the further reason that the article contained 'a ..
and also arsenic in water-soluble form; and the total amount of arsei
and the total amount of arsenic in water-solable form, were not slate' iH


I
I
I







JUDGMENT


155


.r
aiding of Jay's eedSr moth compound. U.S.
ration. Plem of guilty. Fine, $50. (I. & F.
46-A.)
nt of a product intended for use in the control
1 that the article, when used as directed, would
against moths; that it. cQptained no naphthalene,
also that the packages contained less than the


States. attorney for the eastern
hy the Secretary of Agriculture,
s for the district aforesaid, an i
.Chemical Corporation, Brookly
violation of the Insecticide Act
tate of New York into the State
moth compound, which was adu


district
filed in
nforma-
n, N.Y.,
of 1910,
of New
Iterated


that the article was adulterated in that the
r Wood, Naphthalene, Oil of Cedar, Oil of
e package, represented that the article con-
eas its strength and purity fell below the
r which it was sold, since it did not consist
I


FSarading was alleged for the reason that the statements, "A Combination
,i- Wtod, Naphthalene, Oil of Qedar, Oil of Lavender", "Jay's Cedar
:..... pound For Trunks, For Closets, For Upholstered Furniture An Excel-
Mbt. P:.reventive Jay's tig.ies:l 1. Clean and Brush all woolens, clothing, furs, etc., thoroughly.
OSg eto fresh air and sunlight for several hours. 3. Be certain all articles
W- toited are thoroughly dry and ab olutely free from moths, their eggs and
beforere packing. 4. Sprinkle laier of Jay's Cedar Moth Compound on
t .of receptacles and between the layers of articles stored, also on top
.;:. ..Wben storing delicate fabric cover garment with cotton cloth, then
|(idet'ay" Cedar Moth Compound Qn the cotton covering. 6. For cedariz-
. t ..; fill bags. of cheese cloth with Jay's Cedar Moth Compound, and hang
.t fl te)ots. 7. If articles are to be stored for a great length of time,
Wee. Jay'R Cedar Moth Compound every three months. Protect
t Olotbth Carpets, Furs, Woolens and Mohair Furniture by packing with
..thinless ..Jay's Cedar Moth Compound ", borne on the package label, were


wand misleading, and by reason of the sai
1d and branded so as to deceive and misle
. ...d that the article consisted partially of
.e wotild act as an effective preventive.
::te article contained no naphthalene,
l '.. ta t ,gs -.ai.effective preventive and pr
1iut wna alleged for the further reason that
' ip I 4land Correctly stated I terms of
'gps, stc tjey were labeled, "Nftt Weight
.iutained 1es than. 5 ounces. ,'
tahdlntig was&'alleged for the f their reas
t. :.of an inert substance, name cedar w
t. istosy, a'substance that do not preve
1* and th~e ame and percentage nount of
*lthBe iti e, were not stated pl ly and ci
.greoA lwr the names and pe entage a:


d statements the article
ad the purchaser, since
naphthalene, and, when
and protection against m


and,
otecti


when used
on against


was
they
used
oths;


as directed,
moths. Mis-


the contents of the packages
weight on the outside of the
When Packed 5 Oz.". and in


on that
rood exc]
;nt, destr
the said
correctly
mounts c
-- -- *


the article consisted
elusive of cedar-wood
oy, repel, or mitigate
inert substance pres-
on the label; nor, in
f the substances or
-. -B^ a ^ --^_ ^
















July 22, 19d1, from the State of New jersey .into the State of falH
a quantity of All-Nu plant adI garden insect spray, which wua.
and misbranded. :. H i
It was alleged in the information that the article was .adu.itera ..
the statements, "100% active. Contains no inert ingredients... .4.
French] 100% actif. 'Ne content pas des 61 nents inerts ", boqrne 4a .i
represented that its standard and quality were such that it consialt..
of active ingredients, that is to say, ingredients that would preveti, i
repel, or mitigate insects; whereas the strength and purity of the"arta
below the professed standard under which It was sold, since it coniej
large part of an inert ingredient, water. Adulteration was alleged
further reason that the article was intended for use on vegetation, ai
stained a substance which would be injurious to vegetation, when.::
thereto as directed. .
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements on the g
"100% active. Contains no inert ingredients. [in FteieEH
actif. Ne content pas des 614ments inemarts. Contents: 8 ft 9
.237 Liters", borne on the label, were false and misleading; and by re0
the said statements the article was labeled and branded so as to de
mislead the purchaser, since it did not consist entirely of active ingyel
and the cans did not contain 8 fluid ounces or 0.237 liter of the articeI.


branding wE
"All Nu PI
* Th
* Be


Beetle, *
insects. *
all plant
Beetle *
and by rea
and mislea
act as an


is alleged for the
ant and Garden
is spray is espec
an Beetle, *
* [translation
* This spray


'-. ft*


il*l
C.


further reason that the statements on the I
Insect Spray Kills Japanesea *,
ally recommended for killing such 1inaes i
* Cucumber Beetle,. Japanese Beetle,.
from French] All Nu Vapor for plant a&flktg
is especially recommended for killing pra- tt


and garden insects such as Bean Beetle *
* Potato Beetle Caterpillars, etc." were false and mi
son of the said statements the article was labeled so as..tq
d the purchaser, since the article, when used as directed, '
effective spray against Japanese beetles, bean beetles, cuc


beetles, potato beetles, caterpillars, and
Misbranding was alleged for the fu
partially of an inert substance, water, 1


prevent, destroy, repel, or
amount of the said inert su
plainly and correctly on the
article; nor, in lieu thereof,
and every ingredient of the i
percentage of the inert subst


mitigate
stance
label a
were t
article h
ances or


i
sc
ff1
be
av
ii


practically all plant and garden iae
rather reason that the article conszy
that is to say, a substance that d .k
insects, and the name and perce
Present in the article were noti
xed to each of the cans cont .
Same and percentage amout tt .ei
ing insecticidal properties,. and &.u J
ngredients present therein, stated Ill


and correctly on the label. ...
On April 27, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50-


Tuowxzz, Acting


Secretary of


...:"" :=.
H 1i
: : !
* "HH.
.'U)"


,
* # .. *" .


1269.


Mimbrandlng of Hexol. U.S. v. One Hundred and Thirty*r


. ..
..





rr. ..:~
~Ii-s
.11


'3. .
it.,
L !&K


. Bft
JE. ?:..


* ..-. e.
H ...f-.. :


.I
St' Marhol
:I.rn., into
s8f. the


JUDGMENT


157


11.2, May- 10, and May 17, 1982, by Herol, Inc.,
'-01e State of Waphington, that-having been so
-:original unbroken packages at Seattle Wash


from
trans-
-- and


i e.e ad........-.. "" "-- -
..ws'isbu aik. ded insecticide and fungicide within the meaning of the
A.3-.t *eho. f .l.l "
ighg. .was aged for the reason that the article consisted partially
ert substance, after, which does not prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
i. tu.g. and the cartons containing the 16-ounce, 6-ounce, and 2-ounce
aa..'the bottle labels of the 2-ounce bottles did not bear a statement of
ia s:lnd percentage amount Of the said inert substance; nor, in lieu thereof,
..**.:aear on the said cartons or .on the bottle label of the 2-ounce size, a
..t.... f the name and percentage amount of each and every ingredient of
S..*- ..le having isecticidal and fungicidal properties, and the total percentage
i*Sxetifagredients present in the article.


handing was alleged for the further reason that the st
tbottle: labels, the statements, "More than a Safe, P
tig "~ borne on the cartons, and the statement, "A gen
lng in the circular shipped with the article, were false an


8,.iivod axnd misled the purchaser, since
e .article was a safe, nonpoisonous, power
'e4pfe; whereas it was not nonpoisonous,
1 h.....t.epti. and was not a general aqtt
M",hsbranding was alleged for the fur'th
Whlace"of the 16-ounce and 6-ounce bottle
Hteon of Hexol in one quart of warm wdtu
(Atecowumended by doctors)", and the sta
afhes-,ot the' bottles, "For Internal (
.*ng mner of the profession employ a15
|WgH.s treatment, followed by a flush of
tnfill douche) a 0.4 per cent solution
|Sti pujseof Feminine Hygiene, the
.... *.Complete Dilution Chart !*


Stb 1. quart of
bled the purcha
#Lctie. gernicide
)E!!br'4 anik41 i '
-Kisb rant.'g was
lof tlhe 16-oun
ads, furniture, e
.i.ul1 1of H
...tt'r "Comple
ti iifiu outince
'end misl(


'11
*



C


Sthe said statemei
:rful antiseptic, anc
it was not safe, ai
iseptic.
er reason that thi
?s, "For Feminine
er is widely in use


itements
vaginal)
per cent
distilled


in the cir
Douches
solution
water. F


I
1'


ts
w


:atement "Safe"
powerful *
eral Antiseptic ",
d misleading and
represented that
as a general anti-


d was


not a power-


e statements on the
Hygiene: One tea-
for a sanitary flush.
'cular accompanying
in infectious cases,
in warm water as a
or a Maternity Pour
S* I Ifl"W


in warm water is widely in use. ror
same solution may be recommended.
* For feminine douches 1 teaspoon-


warm water", were :false and misleading and deceived and
ser, since the article, when used as directed, was not an
for feminine douches for the purposes claimed.
Alleged for the further reason that the statements on the
zce and 6-ounce bottles, "For Scrubbing Floors, washing bed-
tc. (in sick rooms, offices, waiting rooms, lavatories): Two
exol in one quart of watet", and the statements in the


te Dilution Cha
Sto 1 gallon
?d the purchase


rt
of
?r,


* For scrubbing floors, rinsing of
water", were false and misleading and
since the article, when used as directed,


effective disinfectant for the purposes claimed.
ing was alleged for the further reason that the statement
S16-ounce and the 6.ounce bottles, In The Kennel: After
.h Hexol Liquid Soap, Rinise with one tablespoonful of I
of water. Improves the ooat and repels fleas", were f
and deceived and misled th purchaser, since the article, w
'would not be effective in repelling fleas, and would not be
eas unless repeatedly applied.
". 8 alleged for the f their reason that the followiz
e...ft.t,~Jratory tests have own that Pine Oil Disinfects
faisam specified in five minutes, as tested by standard la
c" : ."*.-. J- r .*_._.. a r -_ *_- n .'1 4 1 n/b *- T"


s on the
washing
Hexol in
alse and
hen used
effective


ng state-
ints will
boratory
k .- t. am -. Cte


0t


NOTICES Of0


















mouLD wasn I to U arops in glass of water'. were false and w
deceived and misled the purchaser, since the article was not 'anS e
infeetant for the purposes stated, nor would it be an effective gefl
cuts, burns, and bruises when used full 'Strength, nor an effetive


or mouth wash, when diluted
On March 20, 1933, Hexol,
mitted the allegations of the
cree, judgment of condemnati
by the court that the product
costs and the execution of a


as directed. -.!.Ni
Inc., San Franciseco, Calif., elaimant yi
libel and having consented to the entry att
on and forfeiture was entered, and it wasd
be released to the said claimant upon Iymas
bond in the sum of $250, conditioned that tid


relabeled under the supervision of this Department.


R. G. TUGowUL, Acting Secretary of Ag


12T70. Mlmbranding of Q.W. mulphur
Vibert (QO-W Laboratories).
N- *.~ All


No. o 54. Dom.
This case was based
use, among other uses,
not help kill fleas, lice,
On April 7, 1933, the
acting upon a report by


compound solution. U.S.
Plea of guilty. flue, hI&A


o0 3(.) '40 7!)
"" i .& ,
on the interstate shipment of a product intend
as an insecticide. Examination showed that it
and similar vermin, as claimed in the labels. .
United States attorney for the district of New 1w.
the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district


of the United States for the district aforesaid an information against Sid
Vibert, trading as the Q-W Laboratories, Bound Brook, N.J., alleging shiMp
by said defendant in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910, on or about ..
ary 12, 1931. from the State of New Jersey into the State of New Yor
quantity of Q.W. sulphur compound solution, which was misbranded. ..:|ij
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded it ..
statement, "Helps also to kill fleas, lice and similar vermin ", borne on. :U
label, was false and misleading,-and by reason of the said statement thbe
was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchasers nle%
statement represented that the article, when used as directed, would act fa
effective insecticide against fleas, lice, and all similar vermin, whereas it
not. .
The interstate shipment of the product also involved a violation of.
eral Food and Drugs Act (F. & D. no. 28076, N.J. no. 20599), both:..#
being covered by one information. On May 3, 1933, a plea of guilty ".
formation was entered on behalf of the defendant company, and thq i
posed a fine of $50, as penalty for violation of both acts. ^
"


R. G. TuOWu.L, Acting Becretary of A


1271. Adulteration and misbranding of Tabako-Fumnes pow
Eleven 12 %-Pound Tins of Tabako-Funmes Powder.
eree of condemnation, forfteiture, and destrwctlon.
1615. Sample No. 21362-A.)


.1






** .. *...:i" ** .
'piduti- wa allied in the libel tor the reason that the strength and
S...BI fel.bellow the professed standard and quality under which
~.e.( ce i$was labeled, Nicotinernot less than 4.07%, Inert Ingredi-
N ..::th^.0 li<, whereas it contained not more than 0.44 percent
S M"ot-s than 99,56 percent of inert ingredients.
s.a.anw sed for the reason that the statements, "Nicotine not
| 4.0Vn% JastE.Emgredtet---Not more than 95.S8%, Tabako-
.. Powdet *. For Fumigating Greenhouses For the
at OfB iBSae rly, ps, Green Fly;, etc. a 3% inch flowerpot filled with
rqmes: is sufficient r about 4000 to 6000 cubic feet of air space ", borne
in v affixed to the t a containing the article, were false and misleading,
iH n of the said statements the article was labeled so as to deceive
.. 4= the pitrchaser, sice the article contained less nicotine and more
... ents than declared, and, when used as directed, would not be
l fefr ,the treatment of black fly, thrips, green fly, and other insects
imt y hy .the abbreviation "etc."


Wa4Ty 12, 1933,
atito an
w ,.t be


M -- .'*. *
#1 MAwlte ration
a .-";., .. *....:...Rabde, Tne.
. .. --.-: os. I0118-A


This case


no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment
d forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court
destroyed by the UTited States marshal.
R. G. TUGWELL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.


S


and miabrandint of Agri
Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.
10988-A.) a


on interstate


shipment


based


4kax, wNich con
tna tleelaed on the
' declared volume.
tAp'vl 10, 1933,
tfg Wpon a report
the' united States


Pax. U.S.
(I. & F. No.


v. Morris B.
1612. Sample


s of an insecticide known as


trained an inert ingredient, water, in a proportion greater
label. Sample cars also were found to contain less than


the United States Attorney for the district of
by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
for the district aforesaid an information ag


I.RJadGe, lInc., a corporation, Belleville, N.J., alleging shipment
fiqr in violation of the Insecticide Act of 1910, on or about June 7


f romn the State of
S.gri Pax that was ad
Swad alleged in the
ttength and purity
hIty uder which it
."" whereas it conta


New Jersey intb the State of New
ulterated and misbranded.
information that the article was
of the article fell below the prol


was
ined


IWi^rndtng was alleged fo
?l 4VE:F15% ", borne on the
.. ftb. sabf ssaid statement the art
I a4Sez,- since it contained


New Jersey,
district court
ainst Morris
by said cornm-
and June 14,


York, of quantities


adulterated in
essed standard


sold, since it was labeled, "Inert matter-Water
water in a proportion greater than 75 percent.
r the reason that the statement, Inert matter-
label, was false and misleading, and by reason
icle was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the
more than .75 percent of water. Misbranding was


leged for the further reason that the q
ib art'zTi tly stated on the outside th
."Contents one quart-two pounds
:'4)art, and less than 2 pounds. ;
~ay 3, 1933, a plea of guilty to fh
fevidant company, and the courfl~r


quantity


of the contents


of the


cans


ereof, since the labels bore the state-
". whereas the cans contained less


information was entered
posed a fine of $50.


on behalf


: -. .. B. G. TUGW4fL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

delte *4tlen and minlulrandln of Hydrox. U.S. v. 36 Cases of
[Hk.tra&wo.-s lefalt decree of c demnuatfon, forfeiture, and deutruc-
iilir 4..*(L, & t. No. 1i14.a pl om a. 14247-A.)
mM, einslvolnas 'n interstate ship nt of Rydrox, a product intended for


I,.
It
N


'H,


w











prevent, destroy, r-pl, orimtgate f : (bac
more than 96 percent; wheeas the re gth ail
below the professed standard and q t lt unde e-
contained less than 4 percent Cf sodi bypoeblo
cent of inert ingredients. -.. I. ...
Misbranding was alleged for the riSC that t
appearing on the bottle labels, were .alse aM- m
the said statements the article was libeled se as
purchaser. : ,. .:-
On May 19, 1983, no claimant having appeared
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered and
that the product be destroyed by the United States


a), t. the grp,,p
d purity .oft e V .a
w eh it wasrl
rfte, andt 10oe SV^
.I;* 4t
he statemeats-flo
isleading; and bfl-
to deceive and ml
':= i .* .
for the property. :
it was ordered :..b r
marshal. : -.:


R. G. Tuown.L, Acting Seeretry of Al
a~~~ a m mmm


* ; ; ,


1274. Adulteration and mibrauntding of flipman brans dry SEtPI
Bordeaux mixture. U.S. v. 144 Bags of Chipman ]Bratnd JDryI
dered Bordeaux Mixture. Default decree of eonitemnaittlo
feltare, and destruction. (I. &.:F. No. 1619. Sample No. 382620-A.)I
This case involved an interstate shipment of Bordeaux mixture whipE.
below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold iAtt4ttt
trained a smaller proportion of the active ingredient, copper, and a laur
portion of inert ingredients than declared on the label. .: ,llB


On or
of Flori
district
of 144 b
alleging
January
Tampa,


about April 27, 1933, the United States attorney for the asouthein


da, s
court
ags o
that
26,
Fla.,


Insecticide Acd
.It was allege
less copper an(
Misbranding
"Active Ingred
not more than
lead the purch
On May 29,
of condemnatk
that the produ


.cting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, fil4.1
t of the United States a libel praying seizure and condbw
f Shipman brand dry powdered Bordeaux mixture at Tani
the article had been shipped in interstate commerce, on, r
1933, by the Chipman Chem!cal Co., from Bound Brook, N'
and charging adulteration and misbranding in violations


Sof 1910.
d in the libel that the
1 more inert ingredient
was alleged for the
ient, copper (as Meta
87%", were false and
aser.
1933, no claimant ha'
)n and forfeiture was
ct be destroyed by thi


R. G.
R.G.


Tt


article was adulterated in that it--.
;s than stated on the label.
reason that the statements on t
llic) not less than 13%, Inert In
misleading and tended to deceive
.


ring appeared for the property,
entered, and it was ordered by
e United States marshal.
rGwELL. Acting BSeoretary of. Agri


A,
*


~?1


--Er
* *..~. E:-~j.~


d


1275. Misbranding of
Plea of guilty.


Moth
Fine


US
f *.
ex. U.S. v. Roseth Chemical 'Dtvi
, $50. (I. & F. No. 1607. Sample No. fOlu
... .. *.


This case was based on an interstatee shipment of an insecticidef
use in controlling moths. Examination showed that the article *
ingredients capable of killing or preventing moths when used for
as directed in the labeling. Ii,,
On March 2, 1933, the United States attorney for the eastern daii.
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed
court of the United States for the district aforesaid an information
Roseth Chemical Division, Inc., a corporation, Brooklyn, N.Y., allege
hr amaid enmnmnv in vinlntion nf the Insertefide Act of 1910. on nr.fia


- :--




* I r :1:
P
4
..Mj. *


A
U .9...hn.
I. H*,.
.lljL* >:~. S
*n.SHc
:9 cJmn.H..
V *H *hq**H *
1'.*j I.. ,.
A.~ ml
'H
V
~ ...~wj ~
- .4 14
L
-a


.11


C.. *'* *5* qpi.*
.1*1. p. :.
S...
a..->.. !i.
I i~
I
ZRVn
A.,
t
V


* i ill* ..
:*.i= ..::. :- .*
h ".: *
BBK^^ :.


* .V
t.o i


<9. ; .."
H:.a ,


.:
S.


11ZAH~C

* .. -..: t..

~
H
I


'~~* lb.
.4
4. 1
A



I

NOTICESS
42.
11.I~~~.
7.0.
H


.JDGMENT.
Jt DGMEN TO. .


1261-1275


r.No.


,ein. *


rf Morris B., [nc.-..--- 1272
i .garden insect ,*ay :
u products Co-_-_- 1268
...r i.d bean: dust:
gai Packing Association. 1262
itkre, Chipman brand dry


:BChemical Co.--.--- 1274

y..J.F. L., Jr.........~.............. 1266:-
[Opy J. L., rr-.----_-__ 1266

Ehy.John L.. Co_--_.. 1266
.rS 1:
.. --ay Manufacturing Co__ 1263
.. .dry powdered Bor-


1 : Hi:'n :''r'A : "
S.....: : '"-S ,
Hi .... ....
*** .... ..X... I *. ** .
: ... J .. *
.**le :x*,a *, *:,
. .* :..::. 4 *" : "

s.:* H *
H ..................h
I ,,t t *
: X : :: X.:.... n "
.X :.X. ".E .. *X ..:*
.., .. i...:... s::, ".. *,
i',E: ,^.^ ^^ E ; ... ..
-:; Is :: .. "i:" .. f..


pmi" Chemical Co...
Liukes Vetivert:


.- 1274.


eeAA Paper Manufacturing


1261


Hexol:
Hexol,
Hydrox:


N.J. No.


Inc---


Hydrox Chemical Co-- -
Industrial pine disinfectant:
Industrial Laboratories, I
Jay's cedar moth compound :*
Jay Chemical Corporation
Mother:


1273


DC--


1267


Roseth Chemical Division, Inc. 1275


Niagara "All In One" mixture:
Niagara Sprayer & Chemical
., Inc ......-------
Pine oil disinfectant:


Industrial


Laboratories


1264


Inc. 1265


Q.W. sulphur compound solution:
Q.W. Laboratories .....----....-
Vibert, Henry.....----------
Tabako-Fumes powder:
Friedman, A. H ....-----..


1270
1270


. ,


i H

* ~ .j:ir
.H~i. ~

!. r~ :





.. .4..
.1.1g. *
~
.1' ,. .,yH::**
.4
4w. ... V
*iik...


? L
HiiiH*

l~ ,:-~

141. /*H V
tHEV~.
.IIIHH...HHI H


~
n.iu:r~ 'ii. 4,
1~~~~

fri -


.::. :.. : .. .
**"m: ~.~~. .*"
i*s.."W *n <. s + "


1.4


siatasii


r


-
.



































X



4














*k




























































i