10119.?Misbranding of apple butter.     U. S.     *     *     *     v. Emma E. Fishback
(The Pure Food Mfg. Co.).    Plea of guilty.     Fine, 810.     (F. & D. No.
11955:    I. S. No. 2706-r.)
On December 16, 1920, the United States attorney for the District of Colo??
rado, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district an information against Emma?
E. Fishback, trading as the Pure Food Mfg. Co., Denver, Colo., alleging that?
the said defendant had guaranteed as complying with the Food and Drugs Act?
a quantity of apple butter which was misbranded within the meaning of the?
said act, as amended, and that on or about January 14, 1919, the said article?
was shipped from the State of Colorado into the State of New Mexico, in vio??
lation of the said act. The article was- labeled: (Cans) " Delicious Brand Fancy?
Apple Butter Packed by The Pure Food Manufacturing Co., Denver, Colo. Net?
Contents 12 Oz."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it was an apple product from which a portion of the?
water-soluble constituents of the fruit had been extracted.
N. J. 10101-10150.3 SEEVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	61
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
the statements appearing on the label, to wit, " Fancy Apple Butter " and " Net?
Contents 12 Oz.," were false and misleading in that they represented that the?
said article was apple butter and that each of the said cans contained not less?
than 12 ounces thereof, and for the further reason that the article was labeled?
as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that the?
article was apple butter and that each of the said cans contained not less than?
12 ounces thereof, whereas, in fact and in truth, the said article was nbt apple?
butter but was a product made from dried apple skins, cores, and pomace, and?
each of the said cans did not contain 12 ounces thereof but did contain a less?
quantity. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was?
food in package form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly or con??
spicuously marked on the outside of the package, in terms of weight, measure,?
or numerical count.
On November 10, 1921, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the in??
formation, and the court imposed a fine of $10.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.