13950. Adulteration and misbranding' of butter. IT. S. v. Harry Petersen 
(Petersen   Creamery).     Plea   of   guilty.     Fine,   $52.     (F.. &   D.   No.
18104.    I. S. No. 11512-v.)
On March 20, 1924, the United States attorney for the District of Utah, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District 
Court of the United States for said district an information against Harry 
Petersen, trading as the Petersen Creamery, Salt Lake City, Utah, alleging 
shipment by said defendant, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, 
on or about September 10, 1923, from the State of Utah into the State of 
Wyoming, of a quantity of butter which was adulterated and misbranded.
The article was labeled in part: (Carton) "One Pound Net Weight Fancy 
Golden Arrow Brand Butter Pasteurized Petersen Creamery Salt Lake City, 
Utah."
Analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of a sample of 
the article showed that it contained 78.19 per cent of milk fat. Examination 
by said bureau of 108 packages showed an average net weight of 15.9 ounces.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a product deficient in milk fat and containing excessive moisture had 
been substituted for butter, which the said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " Butter " 
and " One Pound Net Weight," borne on the packages containing the article, 
svere false and misleading, in that the said statements represented that the
article consisted wholly of butter and that each of the said packages con- 
tained 1 pound net weight thereof, and for the further reason that it was 
labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief 
that it consisted wholly of butter, and that each of the packages contained 
1 pound net weight thereof, whereas it did not consist wholly of butter but 
did consist of a product deficient in milk fat and containing excessive moisture, 
and each of the said packages did not contain 1 pound net weight of butter 
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 November 19, 1925, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the infor- 
mation, and the court imposed a fine of $52. 
.    "   
R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
608*-x.    S.  No. E-5544.)
On November 4 and 24 and December 30, 1925, respectively, the United 
States attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, acting upon a re- 
port by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United 
States for said district libels praying the seizure and condemnation of 1,007 
ases of canned shrimp, remaining in the original unbroken packages at 
'hiladelphia, Pa., consigned by the Houma Packing Co., alleging that the 
rticle had been shipped from Houma, La., on or about July 24, 1925, and 
transported from the State of Louisiana into the State of Pennsylvania, and 
harging adulteration in violation of the food and drugs act. The article 
ras labeled in part: (Can) "Rita Brand Shrimp."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libels for the reason that it 
3nsisted in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed, and putrid animal 
lbstance.
On November 23 and December 14, 1925, and on January 20, 1926, re- 
)ectively, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgments of 
mdemnation and forfeiture were entered, and it was ordered by the court 
lat the product be  destroyed by the United  States marshal.
R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.