thereto, and it appearing to the Court that upon the libel filed therein on the sixteenth day of October, A. D. 1909, a warrent of attachment was duly issued and served and the respondent was cited to appear on the fifth day of November, A. D. 1909; that by virtue of said warrant the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seized the property mentioned in said libel, to wit: Two Barrels of Dried Milk Flour labeled and branded as set forth in said libel, the said property having been in the possession and custody of H. J. Kuhnle & Company; and that under date of November 5, A. D. 1909, the said respondent filed an answer to said Libel, substantially admitting the acts as averred therein, but denying any intention on the part of said respondent to transgress or evade the laws of the United States, and consenting to the prayer thereof and agreeing to the condemnation of said property.

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said property, to wit: Two Barrels of Dried Milk Flour, labeled and branded as set forth in said libel, is misbranded in violation of the Act of Congress approved the thirtieth day of June, A. D. 1906, as set forth in said Libel.

And it is further ordered that the said property, to wit: the said Two Barrels of Dried Milk Flour, labeled and branded as set forth in said Libel, be and the same is hereby condemned and ordered to be disposed of by sale as prayed for in the said Libel, and as provided for in the said Act of Congress approved the thirtieth of June, A. D., 1906. And it is further ordered that the proceeds of said sale, less the legal costs and charges, shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States.

Provided, however, that upon the payment of all the costs of the proceedings herein, and upon the execution and delivery to the libellant by the said H. J. Kuhnle, trading under the firm name of H. J. Kuhnle & Company, of a good and sufficient bond in the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), conditioned that the said Two Barrels of Dried Milk Flour, labeled and branded as set forth in said Libel, shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to the provisions of said Act of Congress approved the thirtieth day of June, A. D., 1906, the said Marshal shall redeliver the said Two Barrels of Dried Milk Flour, labeled and branded as set forth in said Libel, to the said H. J. Kuhnle, trading under the firm name of H. J. Kuhnle & Company, in lieu of disposing of the said property by sale as aforesaid, the said costs to be paid and the said bond to be filed herein, if at all, within five days from the date of this Order.

By the Court.

The facts which preceded the filing of the libel were as follows: On or about October 14, 1909, an inspector of the United States Department of Agriculture found in the possession of H. J. Kuhnle Company, Philadelphia, Pa., five barrels of the product labeled as heretofore described, which had been shipped to said dealer by F. Behrend, of New York City, N. Y. Samples taken from this consignment were analyzed in the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture and found to have been manufactured from a closely skimmed milk and to contain only between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. butter fat. The analysis having disclosed an adulteration and a misbranding of the product the Secretary of Agriculture, on October 15, 1909, reported the facts to the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who filed the above libel, with the results hereinbefore stated.

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 19, 1910.

O

JAMES WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture.

13

ONLY. OF MICH.
MAR 80 1910

I. S. No. 21380-a.

F. & D. No. 768.

Issued March 17, 1910.

United States Department of Agriculture,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 212, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.

MISBRANDING OF PRESERVES.

In accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and of regulation 6 of the rules and regutions for the enforcement of the act, notice is given that on the 7th day of October, 1909, in the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, judgment was rendered in the case of the United States against William Numsen & Sons, Inc., upon information in substance charging said defendant with having unlawfully shipped from Baltimore, Md., to Houston, Tex., 12,000 cans of assorted preserves which were misbranded in this, that upon each of the packages containing the same there was a label bearing the following statement regarding the article contained therein: "This package contains one full pound," which statement was false and misleading in that each of said packages contained less than 1 full pound, to wit, an average of 14.5 ounces, and which were misbranded in that the label on each of said packages stated the contents thereof to weigh 1 full pound, whereas the true weight of said contents was about 14.5 ounces. The defendant pleaded guilty to the information on the aforesaid date and the court imposed upon it a fine of $25.

The facts upon which the prosecution was based were as follows: On or about March 20, 1909, an inspector of the United States Department of Agriculture purchased samples of the preserves labeled as heretofore described from William D. Cleveland & Sons at Houston, Tex., which samples were contained in a consignment of the product shipped to H. T. Keller & Company for delivery to said dealer, by William Numsen & Sons, Inc., Baltimore, Md. A number of the cans were weighed in the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture and the weight of the contents

of each can was found to be about 14.5 ounces. The examination having disclosed an apparent misbranding of the product, the said William Numsen & Sons, Inc., manufacturer, and all other parties in interest were duly notified of said charge and were given an oppor tunity to be heard and were heard in regard thereto, whereupon it having appeared that there had been a violation of the act, the Secre tary of Agriculture, on August 12, 1909, reported the facts to the Attorney General. The case was referred to the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland, who filed an information against William Numsen & Sons, Inc., with the result hereinbefore stated. JAMES WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture.

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 21, 1910.

212

200.9 15 413

F. & D. No. 36-C.

GENERAL LIBRARY,

UNIV. OF MICH

AR 80 1910

Issued March 17, 1910.

United States Department of Agriculture,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 213, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.

ADULTERATION OF ICE CREAM.

In accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and of regulation 6 of the rules and regulations for the enforcement of the act, notice is given that on the 22d day of November, 1909, in the Police Court of the District of Columbia, judgment was rendered in the case of the United States v. Hugh Wallis, a prosecution upon an information in substance charging said defendant with having sold and offered for sale in the District of Columbia a quantity of so-called ice cream which was adulterated in that it contained less than 14 per cent. of milk fat, and further in this, that starch and gelatin had been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality. The defendant on the aforesaid date pleaded guilty to the information. The court imposed upon him a fine of $25.

The facts on which the prosecution was based were as follows:

On May 11, 1909, an inspector of the health department of the District of Columbia, acting under authorization of the Secretary of Agriculture to Dr. William C. Woodward, health officer of said District, procured a sample of what was represented to be ice cream from Hugh Wallis, 617 Twelfth street, NW., Washington, D. C., which sample was analyzed by said health department and found to contain less than 14 per cent. of milk fat, and also to contain starch and gelatin. The analysis having disclosed that said article was adulterated within the meaning of section 7 of the Food and Drugs Act, said Hugh Wallis was duly notified thereof and given an opportunity to be heard in regard to said adulteration, and it appearing that the act had been violated the health officer reported the facts to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, who filed an information. against the said Hugh Wallis, with the result herein before stated. JAMES WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture.

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 21, 1910.