5033. Adulteration and alleged iniswrandimg' of evaporated apples. V, S.?
* * * v. James F. Ladd and Clarence A. ILadd (Ladd Bros.).?
Pleas of guilty to counts 1 and 3 of information. Fine, $5 and?
costs. Other counts nol-nrossed. (F. & D. No. 6777. I. S. Nos. 9185-fa,?
1155S-k.)
On March 27, 1916, the United States attorney for the Western District of?
Arkansas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
James F. Ladd and Clarence A. Ladd, trading as Ladd Bros., Fayetteville,, Ark.,?
alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act,?
on or about April 17, 1914, from the State of Arkansas into the State of Texas,?
and on or about November 24, 1914. from the State of Arkansas into the State?
of Kansas, of quantities of evaporated apples which were adulterated and mis-?
branded. They were contained in wooden cases which were labeled in part:?
" Star Brand Evaporated Apples?Packed by Ladd Bros., Fayetteville, Ark."
Analyses of samples of the article in both shipments by the Bureau of Chem??
istry of this department showed that if contained an excessive amount of?
moisture.
Adulteration of the article in both shipments was alleged in counts 1 and 8?
of the information for the reason that a certain substance?to wit, water?had?
been substituted, in whole or in part, for evaporated appfes, which the article?
purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged in counts 2 and 4 for the reason that the following?
statement regarding the article, or the ingredients or substances contained?
therein, appearing on the labels aforesaid, to wit, " Evaporated Apples," was?
false and misleading in that it indicated to purchasers thereof that said article?
consisted of evaporated apples, and for the further reason that it was labeled,?
'? Evaporated Apples," so as to deceive and mislead purchasers into the belief?
that said article of food consisted of evaporated apples, when, in truth and in?
fact, said article did not consist of evaporated apples but did consist of, to wit,?
a partially dried apple product containing an excessive amount of moisture.?
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was a partially?
dried apple product containing an excessive amount of moisture, and was?
offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, evaporated?
apples.
On June 19, 1916, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to counts 1 and 8?
of the information, and the court imposed a fine of $5 and costs. Counts 2 and?
4 were nol-prossed.
GAEL VEOOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agricultvre.
36	
BUREAU   OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 31.