16072. Adulteration and misbranding' of butter. U. S. v. Leo W. Williams 
and Edmund M. Root (Hardwiclc Creamery). Pleas of guilty. 
Fine, $10.     (F. & D. No. 19335.     I. S. Nos. 16847-v, 16770-v.)
On April 7, 1925, the United States attorney for the District of Vermont, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court 
of the United States for said district an information against Leo W. Williams 
and Edmund M. Root, copartners, trading as the Hardwick Creamery, Hax*d- 
wick, Vt., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the food and 
drugs act as amended, on or about July 9, 1924, from the State of Vermont into 
the State of Massachusetts, of quantities of butter which was adulterated and 
misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled in part: (Package) "Fancy 
Creamery Butter Pure Cream * * *. This Package Contains Eight Ounces 
of Butter." The remainder of the said article was labeled in part: (Crate) 
" H 60 Lbs. Net,"   (package)   " 5 Lbs. Net.,"  and was invoiced as butter.
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that a 
product deficient in milk fat had been substituted for butter, which the article 
purported to be. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that a product 
which contained less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat had been sub- 
stituted for butter, a product which should contain not less than 80 per cent 
by weight of milk fat, as prescribed by the act of March 4, 1923, which the said 
article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to a portion of the article for the reason 
that the statements " Creamery Butter Pure Cream " and " This Package Con- 
tains Eight Ounces of Butter," borne on the label, were false and misleading 
in that the said statements represented that the article consisted wholly of 
creamery butter and that each of the packages contained 8 ounces 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 creamery 
butter, and that each of said packages contained 8 ounces thereof, whereas it 
did not consist wholly of creamery butter but did consist of a product deficient 
in milk fat, and each of said packages did not contain 8 ounces of the article, 
but did contain a less amount. Misbranding was alleged with respect to the 
said portion for the further reason that the statement, to wit, " Butter," 
borne on the label, was false and misleading in that it represented that the
53014-29 2
article was butter, to wit, a product which should contain not less than SO 
per cent by weight of milk fat, as prescribed by law, whereas it did not contain 
SO per cent by weight of milk fat but did contain a less amount. Misbranding 
was aliened with respect to the remainder of the article for the reason that it 
was a product deficient in milk fat, prepared in imitation of butter, and was 
offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, 
butter. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the statement, 
to wit, " 00 Lbs. Net," borne on the crates containing the article, and the 
statement, to wit, " 0 Lbs. Net," borne on the packages, were false and mislead- 
ing in that they represented that each of the said crates contained 00 pounds 
of butter, and that each of said packages contained 5 pounds thereof, 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 crates contained 00 pounds net 
of butter, and that each of said packages contained 5 pounds net thereof, 
whereas each of said crates did not contain GO pounds net of butter but did 
contain a less amount, and each of said packages did not contain 5 pounds 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 con- 
tents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.
On August 11, 1928, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine of $10.
ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.