19774.  Adulteration   and   Misbranding of   sirup.     U.   S.   v.   Chauvin   Bros.
FrQS^fTinSo^0o.Shea   oŁ   sullty.    Fine,   $50.    (P.   &   D.   No.   27502. 
I. S. Nos. 24315, 24316.,)
This action was based on the interstate shipment of two lots of sirup, in 
¦both of which samples were found to be short of the declared volume. Samples 
taken from one lot were found to contain added molasses.
On March 28, 1932, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Louisiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an information 
•against Chauvin Bros. Preserving Co., a corporation, Burnside, La.y alleging 
shipment by said company on or about April 22, 1931, in violation of the food 
and drugs act, from the State of Louisiana into the State of Mississippi of 
.quantities of sirup, a portion of which was misbranded and the remainder of 
which was adulterated and misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled 
in part: (Can) "Lucky Strike Brand Pure Open Kettle Sugar Cane Syrup 
Contents 3 Qts. 8 F. Oz." The remainder was labeled in part: "Louisiana 
.Maid Pure Cane Syrup We guarantee this Syrup to be made from the Pure 
Juice of the Sugar Cane   *   *   *   Contents 3 Quarts—7 Fluid Ounces."
Adulteration was alleged in the information with respect to the Louisiana 
.Maid sirup for the reason that an undeclared and added substance, to wit, 
molasses, had been substituted in part for pure sugar cane sirup, which the 
article purported solely to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement " Contents 3 Qts. 
3 F. Oz." with respect to the Lucky Strike brand sirup, and "Pure Cane 
Syrup * * * We Guarantee this Syrup to be made from the Pure Juice 
of the Sugar Cane * * * Contents 3 Quarts 7 Fluid Ounces," with respect 
to the Louisiana Maid sirup, were false and misleading, and for the further 
reason that the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser; 
since the said statements represented that the cans each contained the amount 
labeled thereon, and that the said Louisiana Maid sirup was pure cane sirup 
made exclusively from the pure juice of the sugar cane, whereas the cans in 
each lot contained less than labeled and the Louisiana Maid sirup was made in 
part from an added and undeclared substance, namely, molasses. Misbranding 
was alleged with respect to the Louisiana Maid sirup for the further reason 
that the article was offered for sale under the distinctive name of another 
article, namely, sugar cane sirup, which it purported solely to be. Misbranding 
was alleged with respect to both lots 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, since the quantity stated on the package was 
incorrect.
On April 11, 1932, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
•of the defendant company and the court imposed a fine of $50.
HENBY A. WALLACE, Secretary of Agriculture.