13389. Adulteration and misbranding of butter. V. S. v. Western Meat Co. 
Plea oi guilty. Fine, $100. (F. & D. No. 17606. I. S. Nos. 8005-v, 
'8694-v.)
On or about November 19, 1923, 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 Western Meat Co., a corporation, San Francisco, Calif., -alleging 
that on or about February 16, 1923, the said company delivered for shipment 
from the State of California into the Territory of Hawaii a quantity of butter 
which was adulterated and misbranded in violation of the food and drugs act, 
and that on or about March 5, 1923, the said company shipped from the 
State of California into the Territory of Hawaii a quantity of butter which 
was misbranded in violation of said act as amended. The article was labeled 
in part: " Fort Sutter Brand Creamery Butter    *    *    *    1 Lb. Net Weight."
Analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of a sample from 
the product delivered for shipment February 16, 1923, showed that the said 
sample contained 79.42 per cent of milk fat and 16.05 per cent of moisture. 
Examination by said bureau of 305 cartons from the shipment of March 5, 
1923, showed an average net weight of 15.71 ounces.
Adulteration was alleged with respect to a portion of the article for the 
reason that a product deficient in milk fat and containing an excessive amount 
of moisture had been substituted in whole or in part for creamery butter, 
which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the said portion for the reason 
that the statement, to wit, " Creamery Butter," borne on the packages con- 
taining the article, was false and misleading, in that the said statement repre- 
sented that the article consisted wholly of creamery butter, and for the further 
reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the pur- 
chaser into the belief that it consisted wholly of creamery butter, whereas it 
did not so consist but did consist in whole or in part of a product deficient 
in milk fat and containing an excessive amount of moisture.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the remainder of the article for 
the reason that the statement, to wit, " 1 Lb. Net Weight," borne on the 
packages containing the article, was false and misleading, in that the said 
statement represented that each of said packages contained 1 pound net weight 
of butter, 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 said packages 
contained 1 pound net weight of butter, whereas each of said packages did 
not contain 1 pound net weight of butter but did contain a less amount. 
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the said portion for the reason that it 
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 28, 1923, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on be- 
half of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
C. F. MABVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.