11952.  Misbranding of rolled  barley.     V.  S.  v.  San  Francisco  Milling: Co., 
IAA., a Corporation.     Plea of nolo contendere.     Fine, 8200.      (F. &
I>.   No.   16404.    I.   S.   Nos.   11080-t,   11081-t,   11082-t,   11083-t,    11084-t, 
11085-t,  11086-t.)
On September 14, 1922, the United States attorney for the Northern 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 San Francisco Milling Co., Ltd., a corporation, San Francisco, Calif., al- 
leging shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, 
as amended, in various consignments, namely, on or about February 6, 7, and 8, 
1922, respectively, from the State of California into the Territory of Hawaii, 
of quantities of rolled barley which was misbranded. The greater portion 
of the article was labeled in part: (Sack) "Rid Barley 75 Lbs. Net." The 
remainder of the article was labeled in part: (Sack) " Hilo Prince Special 
Rolled Barley 75 Lbs. Net."
Examination of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department 
showed that the sacks contained less than the quantity declared on the labels 
thereof.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that the statement, to wit, " 75 Lba Net," borne on the sacks containing the 
article, regarding the said article, was false and misleading in that the said 
statement represented that each of the said sacks contained 75 pounds net of 
the said article, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid 
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that each of the 
said sacks contained 75 pounds net of the article, whereas, in truth and in 
fact, each of the said sacks did not contain 75 pounds net of the said article 
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 March 29, 1923, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was entered 
on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $200.
G. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.