13144. Adulteration and misbranding of sweet chocolate coating-. V. S. v. Royal Cocoa Co. Plea of g-uilty. Fine, S150. (F. & D. No. 18763. I. S. No. 2770-v, 16012-v.) On December 13, 1924, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis- trict Court of the United States for said district an information against the Royal Cocoa Co., a corporation, Camden, N. J., alleging shipment by sa'jd company, in violation of the food and drugs act, in part on or about August 13, 1923, and in part on or about March 20, 1924, from the State of New Jer- sey into the State of Pennsylvania, of quantities of sweet chocolate coating which was adulterated and misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled, "Dandy 349-30803 Sweet Chocolate Coating." The remainder of the said article was labeled in part: " Dandy * * * Sweet Choc. Ctg." Analyses by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of a sample from each of the consignments showed that they contained excessive quantities of cocoa shells. Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that a substance, to wit, an excessive amount of cocoa shells, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its qual- ity and strength and had been substituted in part for sweet chocolate coating, which the said article purported to be. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement " Chocolate," with respect to a portion of the product, and the statement " Dandy Choc. Ctg.," with respect to the remainder thereof, appearing on the labels, were false and misleading, in that they represented the article to be unadulterated chocolate, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was unadulterated chocolate, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not unadulterated chocolate, in that it contained an excessive amount of cocoa shells. On January 26, 1925, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $150. E.. W. DTJNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.