10625.?Misbranding of canned  shrimp.     TT.  S.     *      *      *     v.  Dunbar-Dnkate
Co., a Corporation.    Plea of guilty.    Fine, $60.     (F. & D. No. 12796.
I. S. Nos. 17361-r, 17367-r, 1736&-r.)
On December 4, 1920, the United States attorney for the Eastern District?
of Louisiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against the?
Dunbar-Dukate Co., a corporation, New Orleans, La., alleging shipment by said?
company, on or about October 15, 1919, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act,?
as amended, from the State of Louisiana into the District of Columbia, of?
quantities of canned shrimp which was misbranded. A portion of the article?
was labeled in part: (Can) "Dunbar's Barataria Shrimp Net Weight 5 Ozs."?
(or "8i Ozs.") "Packed By G. W. Dunbar's Sons Branch Dunbar-Dukate?
Co. New Orleans, La. - Biloxi, Miss. *? * *." The remainder of the article?
was labeled in part: (Can) "* * * Dunbar's Pickled Shrimp Net Weight?
5| Ozs. , *    *    *."
Examination of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed that the average net weight of 7 cans of the 5-ounce size?
was 4.56 ounces; that the average net weight of 4 cans of the 5f-ounce size?
was 5.49 ounces; and that the average net weight of 4 cans of the 81-ounce?
size was 8.11 ounces.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance in the information for the?
reason that the respective statements, to wit, " Net Weight 5 Ozs.," " Net Weight?
Si Ozs.," and " Net Weight 5f Ozs.," borne on the cans containing the article,?
regarding the said article, were false and misleading in that the said state??
ments represented that each of the said cans contained 5 ounces, 8i ounces,?
or 5| ounces, as the ease might be, of the said article, and for the further?
reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead?
the purchaser into the belief that each of the said cans contained 5 ounces,?
81 ounces, or 5| ounces, as the case might be, of the said article, whereas, in?
truth and in fact, each of the said cans did not contain the amount stated?
thereon but did contain a less amount. Misbranding was alleged for the fur??
ther 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 December 9, 1921, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on?
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $60.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.