25543. Adulteration of butter.     V.  S. v.  Newman Grove  Cooperative Creamery
Co., Inc.    Plea of guilty.    Fine, $10 and costs.    (F. & D. no. 33777.    Sam- 
ple no. 67377-A.)
This product was represented to be butter, but it contained less than 80 per- 
cent by weight of milk fat
On October 19, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court 
an information against the Newman Grove Cooperative Creamery Co., Inc., a 
corporation, Newman Grove, Nebr., alleging^RHipment in violation of the Food 
and Drugs Act as amended, on or about March 8, 1934, from Omaha, Nebr., to 
New York, N. Y., of a number of tubs containing an article of food, billed as 
butter, that was adulterated. The article was labeled in part: (Tub) "3648 
New York 4 4%."
Adulteration of the product was charged under the allegations that it pur- 
ported to be butter; that the product contained less than 80 percent by weight 
of milk fat; and that a product that contained less than said percentage of milk 
fat had been substituted for what the article purported to be, namely, butter.
The defendant pleaded not guilty in an "answer" in which it alleged (a) that 
it had acted "without any fault, negligence, criminal intent, or wrongful intent 
of any kind whatsoever" and (b) that it "had been placed in jeopardy." The 
answer was without a statement of facts as a basis for the second of these 
allegations. However, it otherwise appears that in a precedent libel a number 
of the tubs of butter in the shipment which was the basis for the charge pre- 
ferred in the information had been seized, and subsequently reconditioned pur- 
suant to a provision in a judgment of condemnation and forfeiture, at an 
expense to the defendant of $160.12. The Government demurred to the answer. 
The court sustained the demurrer in a memorandum opinion, as follows:
DONOHOB, District Judged There has been submitted to the Court the de- 
murrer of the
~Un!ted States of America to the answer of the defendant This 
demurrer searches the entire record. The defendant contends that the informa- 
tion is not sufficient to charge an offense under the provisions of the act known 
as "Foods and Drugs Act", while the Government contends that the information 
is sufficient and the matter set forth in the answer does not constitute a 
defense.
The charging part of the information is that the defendant did within the 
jurisdiction of this court unlawfully ship and deliver for shipment, a consign- 
ment of tubs containing an article of food billed as butter, then follows the 
charge that the articles of food so billed did not meet the requirement of the 
act defining butter within the terms thereof.
The provisions of the Food and Drug Act, Title 21 U. S. C. A. paragraph 2, 
in so far as it applies to this case, prohibits the introduction into any state or 
territory, from any other state or territory, any article of food which is adul- 
terated or misbranded, and provides that any person who shall ship or deliver 
for shipment from any state or territory to any other state or territory, or who 
shall receive In any state or territory, and having so received shall deliver, etc. 
In this case, we think the information sufficiently charges the delivery of this 
article of food for shipment within the jurisdiction of this Court. The receiv- 
ing and delivery of the shipment would constitute a separate offense within 
the New York jurisdiction.
The information does not charge the offense of misbranding and consequently 
we hold that the information is sufficient to charge the offense of delivery for 
shipment in interstate commerce.
The allegations of the answer in effect allege lack of knowledge or intent on 
the part of the shipper. The Food and Drug Acts is regulatory, and the of- 
fenses created thereby are misdemeanors. They are not offenses in which 
moral turpitude is an ingredient, and consequently lack of knowledge or intent 
on the part of the shipper in this case would not constitute a defense. U. S. v. 
.Claggett., 208 Fed. 419; U. S. v^lg^Cr^tes-ttf-J^zen-Eggs, 215 Fed. 584.
one demurrer of the plaintiffiEorffie answer will therefore sustained.
On March 17, 1936, a plea of guilty having been entered, a fine of $10 and 
costs was imposed.
W. R. GEEGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.