P. & D. No.  3463.
S. No. 1284.	
Issued October 24, 1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1740.
(Glyen pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
MISBRANDING OF CANNED CORN.
On or about February 23, 1912, the United States Attorney for the?
Western District of Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary?
of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for?
said district a libel for the seizure and condemnation of 1,000 cases,?
each containing 24 cans of sugar corn, remaining unsold in the origi??
nal unbroken packages and in possession of the Kansas City Whole??
sale Grocery Co., a corporation, Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the?
product had been shipped on or about January 15, 1912, by the Sac?
City Canning Co., Sac City, Iowa, and transported from the State?
of Iowa into the State of Missouri and charging misbranding in vio??
lation of the Food and Drugs Act. The cases containing the product?
were labeled: " 2 doz. No. 2 cans Cloverdale Brand Sugar Corn.?
Packed by Sac City Canning Co., Sac City, Iowa ". Part of the cans?
were labeled: " Cloverdale Brand Sugar Corn. This can contains?
sugar corn, cane sugar, salt and water. Average weight of contents?
21 oz. Packed by Sac City Canning Co. Sac City, Iowa. Our first?
quality. Guaranteed by the packer under the Food and Drugs Act,?
June 30, 1906. Serial No. 8944 (with a picture of an ear of corn) ".?
A part of the cans were labeled: " Cloverdale Brand Sugar Corn.?
This can contains sugar corn, cane sugar, salt and water. Average?
weight of contents 20^ oz. Guaranteed by Sac City Canning Co.,?
under the Food and Drugs Act, of June 30, 1906. Serial No. 8944.?
Sac City Canning Co., Sac City, Iowa (with a picture of an ear of?
corn)".
Misbranding was alleged in the libel for the reason that it was?
represented and stated on the labels upon the product, as to a portion?
of the same, that the cans contained 21 ounces of the product, as?
stated on said cans; on others that they contained 20? ounces of the?
product, as stated on the labels; whereas, in truth and in fact, the said?
cans did not contain either 21 or 20? ounces of the product, but a less?
amount; that the cans so represented and stated to contain 21 ounces?
of the product contained but 20| ounces thereof; that the cans repre-
57363??No. 1740?12
sented and stated to contain 20^ ounces of the product contained but?
20 ounces thereof.
On February 28, 1912, the said Sac City Canning Co., claimant,?
having, filed its answer admitting the allegations contained in the?
libel, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it?
was further ordered that upon payment of the costs of the proceed??
ings by said claimant and the execution of a bond in conformity with?
section 10 of the Act, the product should be released and delivered to?
said claimant.
W. M. HAYS,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, August 13, 1912.
1740