10177.?Misbranding  of  tomato   catsup.    U.   S.     *     *     *     v.   Harvard   Vine?
yards, Inc., a Corporation.     Plea of nolo  contendere.    Fine, $25-
(F. & D. No. 14350.    I. S. No. 13204-r.)
On September 6, 1921, the United States attorney for the Western -District?
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the
N. J. 10151-10200]  SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.
<?7
District Court of the United States for said district an information against the?
Harvard Vineyards, Inc., a corporation, Brocton, N. Y., alleging shipment by?
said company, under the name of the Naboth Vineyards, on or about January 7,?
1920, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, from the -State of?
New York into the State of Massachusetts, of a quantity of tomato catsup which?
was misbranded. The article was labeled in part, (bottles) " Brunswick Brand?
*    *    *    Tomato Catsup    *    *    *."
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
the statement, to wit, " Net Weight 1 Lb. 2 Ozs.," borne on the labels attached?
to a number of the bottles containing the said article, and the statement, to?
wit, " Net Weight 9 Ounces," borne on the labels attached to the remainder of?
the said bottles, regarding the article, were false and misleading in that the?
said statements represented that the said bottles contained one pound 2 ounces?
net or 9 ounces net of the said article, respectively, and for the further reason?
that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the pur??
chaser into the belief that the said bottles contained one pound 2 ounces net?
or 9 ounces net of the said article, respectively, whereas, in truth and in fact,?
the said bottles did not contain one pound 2 ounces net or 9 ounces net of the?
said article, respectively, but did contain a less amount. Misbranding was?
alleged for the further reason that the article was food in package form, and?
the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the?
outside of the package.
On December 13, 1921, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was en??
tered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.