Cite as 24 A.D. 802

ducted $35.40 from the purchase price shown on the buyer's bill indicating that such deduction was for "excess shrinkage" of 120 pounds and remitted to Ratliff Stockyards $35.40 less than the agreed purchase price.

(No. 9897)

In re WILFORD C. WHITE, d/b/a GRANDFIELD STOCKYARDS. P&S Docket No. 3447. Decided June 15, 1965.

Market agency-Bonding requirements-Cease and desist-Default

Respondent is ordered to cease and desist from engaging in business under the act without the required bond.

Mr. Garrett N. Wyss for complainant. Mr. Will Rogers, Hearing Examiner.

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is a disciplinary proceeding under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), instituted by a complaint filed January 11, 1965, by the Director, Packers and Stockyards Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, (presently the Consumer and Marketing Service), United States Department of Agriculture. Respondent is registered with the Secretary under the act as a market agency to sell livestock in commerce on a commission basis and is charged with engaging in business as a market agency in commerce without filing and maintaining a reasonable bond or its equivalent to cover such market agency activities as required by the act and the regulations issued thereunder. A copy of the complaint and a copy of the rules of practice were served upon respondent January 15, 1965.

At the time of service of the complaint, respondent was notified in writing that an answer thereto should be filed within 20 days after such service and that, in accordance with section 202.9 of the rules of practice (9 CFR 202.9), failure to file an answer would constitute an admission of the facts alleged in the complaint and, in effect, a waiver of oral hearing. Notwithstanding such notice, the respondent has not filed an answer although he was granted extensions of time within which to do so. The matter was

Cite as 24 A.D. 802

referred to Will Rogers, Hearing Examiner, Office of Hearing Examiners, United States Department of Agriculture, for the preparation of a report without further investigation or hearing pursuant to section 202.9 (c) of the rules of practice. On May 18, 1965, the hearing examiner filed a report recommending that respondent be found to have violated the act as charged, be ordered to cease and desist from such violation and be suspended as a registrant under the act until he complies with the bonding requirements of the act and the regulations issued thereunder. Subsequently, respondent alleged that he was then in compliance with the bonding requirements and complainant denied that such was the case. Complainant now agrees that respondent meets such requirements.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent, Wilford C. White, is an individual doing business as Grandfield Stockyards, whose address is Mt. Park, Oklahoma. Respondent is now and was at all times material herein registered with the Secretary under the act as a market agency to sell livestock in commerce on a commission basis.

2. Grandfield Stockyards, Grandfield, Oklahoma, was at all times material herein a posted stockyard subject to the provisions of the act.

3. Respondent engaged in business as a market agency selling livestock at the stockyard on a commission basis from January to November 1963. The $10,000 bond which respondent maintained to secure performance of his market agency obligations terminated January 25, 1964. Notwithstanding such termination of his bond, respondent resumed operations August 28, 1964 as a market agency selling livestock at the stockyard on a commission basis and has continued so to operate to at least January 11, 1965 without filing and maintaining a reasonable bond or its equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondent's operation in business as a market agency under the act without a reasonable bond or its equivalent, as set forth in Finding of Fact 3, constitutes a willful violation of section 312 (a) of the act (7 U.S.C. 213 (a)) and sections 201.29 and 201.30 of the regulations issued thereunder (9 CFR 201.29 and 201.30). See, e.g., In re W. O. Steen, 16 A.D. 125 (1957); In re Ray York, 20 A.D. 1112 (1961). Respondent should be ordered to

Cite as 24 A.D. 804

cease and desist from such violation, as recommended by complainant.

ORDER

Respondent shall cease and desist from engaging in business in commerce under the act in any capacity for which bonding is required by the act and the regulations issued thereunder without filing and maintaining a reasonable bond or its equivalent, as required by the act and regulations issued thereunder.

This order shall become effective on the 10th day after service thereof upon the respondent and copies hereof shall be served upon the parties.

(No. 9898)

In re COOPER COMMISSION COMPANY, INC. P&S Docket No. 3546. Decided June 16, 1965.

Bonding requirements-Cease and desist-Consent

Respondent is ordered to cease and desist from engaging in business in commerce in any capacity for which bonding is required under the act and the regulations without filing and maintaining a reasonable bond or its equivalent, as required by the act and the regulations thereunder. Mr. Garrett N. Wyss for complainant. Respondent pro se.

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is a disciplinary proceeding under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended and supplemented (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the Act, instituted by a complaint filed on June 8, 1965, by the Acting Director, Packers and Stockyards Division, Consumer and Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, charging respondent with violations of the Act and the regulations thereunder (9 CFR 201.1 et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the regulations.

Respondent filed an answer on June 15, 1965, in which it admits the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, neither admits nor denies the remaining allegations, waives oral hearing and the report of the Hearing Examiner, and consents to the issuance

Cite as 24 A.D. 804

of a specified order, with findings and conclusions, for the purpose of this proceeding only, based on all allegations contained in the complaint. Respondent's answer also states that a surety bond in the sum of $50,000, effective and dated June 8, 1965, was placed in the mail to the United States Department of Agriculture on June 9, 1965, in compliance with the verbal notice received May 17, 1965. Complainant has filed a recommendation stating that respondent is now in compliance with the bonding requirements of the Act and regulations and that effectuation of purposes of the Act does not appear to require that respondent be suspended as a registrant and recommending that the cease and desist order consented to by respondent be issued.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent, a corporation with its place of business at Baltimore Union Stock Yards, Baltimore, Maryland, is now and was at all times material herein engaged in the business of a market agency, buying and selling in commerce livestock on a commission basis, and is now and was at all times material herein so registered with the Secretary of Agriculture.

2. Baltimore Union Stock Yards, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, hereinafter called the stockyard, is now and was at all times material herein a posted stockyard subject to the provisions of the Act.

3. (a) The surety bond in the amount of $10,000 which respondent had maintained to secure performance of its market agency obligations under the Act, was terminated on June 8, 1965.

(b) On May 17, 1965, during a supervisory visit to the stockyard by officials of the Packers and Stockyards Division, United States Department of Agriculture, respondent was informed through its president, John L. Cooper, that on the basis of the volume of its livestock transactions during its past period of operation, it would have to increase to $50,000 the amount of bond maintained by it to secure performance of its market agency obligations under the Act.

(c) Notwithstanding such notice, respondent continued to engage in the business of a market agency at the stockyard without filing and maintaining the required increased bond or bond equivalent coverage.

Cite as 24 A.D. 806

CONCLUSIONS

By reason of the facts set forth in Finding of Fact 3 herein, it is concluded that respondent has willfully violated section 312 (a) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 213 (a)), and sections 201.29 and 201.30 of the regulations (9 CFR 201.29, 201.30). Inasmuch as complainant has recommended that the cease and desist order consented to by respondent be issued, the order will be issued.

ORDER

Respondent shall cease and desist from engaging in business in commerce in any capacity for which bonding is required under the Act and the regulations without filing and maintaining a reasonable bond or its equivalent, as required by the Act and the regulations thereunder.

This Order shall become effective on the sixth day after service upon respondent. Copies hereof shall be served upon the parties.

(No. 9899)

In re BUSTER (CHARLES D.) HAACK. P&S Docket No. 3466. Decided June 16, 1965.

Bonding requirements-Cease and desist

Respondent is ordered to cease and desist from engaging in business in commerce in any capacity for which bonding is required under the act and the regulations without filing and maintaining a reasonable bond or its equivalent, as required by the act and the regulations issued thereunder.

Mr. Garrett N. Wyss for complainant. Mr. J. C. Umland, Waller, Texas, for respondent. Mr. Will Rogers, Hearing Examiner.

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

DECISION AND ORDER

The recommended decision and order of the hearing examiner filed May 21, 1965, to which respondent did not file exceptions, are adopted as the final decision and order in this proceeding.

This order shall become effective on the 6th day after service thereof upon respondent and copies hereof shall be served upon the parties.