24339. Adulteration   and misbranding of   butter.    V.   S.   v.   Hattiesburg;
Creamery & Produce Co.     Plea of grullty.     Fine, $50.     (F. & D. no.
31503.    Sample no. 33673-A.)
This case was based on an interstate shipment of butter which was deficient 
in milk fat and which was short weight.
On June 23, 1934, the United States attorney for the Southern District of 
Mississippi, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court an information against the Hattiesburg Creamery & Produce Co., 
a corporation, Hattiesburg, Miss., alleging shipment by said company in viola- 
tion of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, on or about May 10, May 14, and 
May 15, 1933, from the State of Mississippi into the State of Louisiana of a 
quantity of butter which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was 
labeled in part: "Extrafancy Morning Glory Creamery Butter Morning Glory 
Creameries, Inc. One Pound Net Weight * * * Borden Associated 
Companies."
The article was alleged to be adulterated in that a product containing less 
than 80 percent by weight of milk fat had been substituted for butter, a product 
which should contain not less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat, as pre- 
scribed by the act of Congress of March 4, 1923, which the article purported 
to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, " butter" and 
" One Pound Net Weight", borne on the label, 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 article was butter, 
a product which should contain 80 percent by weight of milk fat, and that the 
packages each contained 1 pound thereof; whereas it did not contain 80 percent 
by weight of milk fat, but did contain a less amount and the packages contained 
less than 1 pound net weight of the article. 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 February 28, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant 
company and the court imposed a fine of $50.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.