15354. Adulteration of    scallops    and    Misbranding of    oysters.       XJ,    S.    v,
Albert L. Doughty.    Pleas of g-ullty.    Fine, $75.     (F. & D. Nos. 19760, 
19779.    I. S. Nos. 5754-x, 8102-x.)
On October 22, 1926, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Virginia, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district infonnations against Albert 
L. Doughty, trading as A. L. Doughty, Willis Wharf, Va., alleging shipment by 
said defendant, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, from the 
State of Virginia into the State of New York, on or about December 19, 1925, 
of a quantity of oysters, which were misbranded, and on or about February 
1, 1926, of a quantity of scallops, which were adulterated. The articles were 
labeled " Minimum Volume 1-Gallon."
Adulteration of the scallops was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a substance, to wit, water, had been mixed and packed therewith so as 
to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been 
substituted in part for scallops, which the said article purported to be. Adulter- 
ation of the said scallops was alleged for the further reason that a valuable 
constituent, to wit, scallop solids, had been abstracted in part from the article.
Misbranding of the oysters was alleged for the reason that the statement 
?"Minimum Volume 1-Gallon," borne on the cans containing the article, was 
false and misleading in that the said statement represented that the said cans 
each contained not less than 1 gallon of oysters, and for the further reason 
that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the pur- 
chaser into the belief that the cans each contained not less than 1 gallon of 
oysters, whereas the said cans did not each contain 1 gallon of oysters, but 
did contain a less quantity. Misbranding of the oysters was alleged for the 
further reason that they were food in package form and the quantity of the 
contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.
On November 12, 1926, the defendant entered pleas of guilty to the informa- 
tions, and the court imposed a fine of $75, which fine covered both cases.
R. W. DUNLAP, Actiiig Secretary of Ag7-iculture.