12572. Misbranding' and allegred adulteration of butter.     U.  S. v.  12 Cases
of Butter. Consent decree, of condemnation and forfeiture. 
Product released under bond.     (F. & D. No. 18404.    I. S. No. 15157-v.
S. No. E-4748.)
On February 20,1924, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Supreme 
Court of the district aforesaid, holding a district court, a libel praying the 
seizure and condemnation of 12 cases, each containing. 30 pounds of butter, 
alleging that the article was being offered for sale and sold in the District of 
Columbia, in violation of the food and drugs act, by the Potomac Butter Co., 
Washington, D. C, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation 
of the food and drugs act.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that a sub- 
stance, to wit, a product deficient in butterfat, had been mixed and packed 
therewith so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and 
strength and had been substituted in whole or in part for butter, which the 
said article purported to be. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason 
that a valuable constituent ofs the article, to wit, butterfat, had been in whole 
or in part abstracted.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Butter," 
borne on the cartons containing the article, was false and misleading in that 
the said statement represented that the cartons contained butter, and for the 
further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and 
mislead the purchaser into the belief that each of the said cartons contained 
butter, whereas they did not but contained a product deficient in butterfat.
On April 16, 1924, the De Soto Creamery &, Produce Co., Minneapolis, Minn., 
claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel and consented to the 
entry of a decree, judgment of the court was entered, finding the product to be 
misbranded and ordering its condemnation and forfeiture, and it was further 
ordered by the court that the product be released to the said claimant upon 
payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the 
sum of $150, in conformity with section 10 of the act.
HOWAED M. GOEE, Secretary of Agriculture.
21668-25 3