11032. Misbranding- of oranges. U. S. v. Mutual Orange Distributors, a?
Corporation. Plea of grnilty. Fine, S50. (F. & D. No. 15998. I. S.?
Nos. 5738-t,  5739-t.)
On April 28, 1922, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against the?
Mutual Orange Distributors, a corporation, Redlands, Calif., alleging shipment?
by said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or?
about May 13, 1921, from the State of California into the State of New York,?
of quantities of oranges which were misbranded. A portion of the article was?
labeled in part: " St. Michaels Net Count 324 Diam 2J In Mutual Sunflower?
Brand Redlands Mutual Orange Company Redlands, California Mutual Orange?
Distributors." The remainder of the article was labeled in part: " St. Michaels?
Net Count 324 Average Diameter 2\ inches. Orange Blossom Brand Washing??
ton Navels Grown and Packed by Redlands Mutual Orange Co. Redlands San?
Bernardino Co. California."
Examination, by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department, of samples?
taken from both consignments of the article showed that the average diameter?
of the oranges in the said consignments was lit inches and 2 inches, respec??
tively, and that the boxes contained more than 324 of the small oranges.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
the statement, to wit, "Net Count 324 Average Diameter 2i inches" (or "Diam?
2i In"), borne on the boxes containing the article, regarding the said article,?
was false and misleading in that the said statement represented that each of?
the said boxes contained 324 oranges and that the average diameter of said?
oranges was 2J inches, and for the further reason that it was labeled as afore??
said so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that each of said?
boxes contained 324 oranges and that the average diameter of said oranges was?
21 inches, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of said boxes did not contain?
324 oranges and said oranges did not average 2J inches in diameter. Misbrand??
ing 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 June 26, 1922, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf?
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
C. F. MARVIN, Aotinff Secretary of Agriculture.