10757.?Misbranding  of  butter.     IT.   S.   v.   Glen  W.  Hudson,   Carl  A.   ffyhms,
George W. Zlacteatt, and J. H. Majors (the Raton Creamery Co.).?
Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 and costs. (F. & D. No. 15590. I. S. Nos.?
10824-t, 10825-t.)
On March 14, 1922, the United States attorney for the District of New?
Mexico, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against
424	
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement He,
Glen W. Hudson, Carl A. Nyhus, George N. Zlackatt, and J. H. Majors, trad??
ing as the Raton Creamery Co., Raton, N. M., alleging shipment by said de??
fendants, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about?
June 10, 1921, from the State of New Mexico into the State of Colorado, of?
quantities of butter which was misbranded. A portion of the article was?
labeled in part: " The Scenic Brand Pure Creamery Butter * * * One?
Pound Net * * * The Raton Creamery Company Raton, New Mexico."?
The remainder of the article was labeled in part: " Brookfield Creamery?
Butter 1 lb. Net Weight * * * The within contents weighed 1 lb.?
when packed. Owing to natural shrinkage due to evaporation and other?
causes, contents are not guaranteed to weigh at time of sale the amount?
marked on the package, but sale is made at packed weight."
Examination of a sample of the Scenic Brand butter by the Bureau of?
Chemistry of this department showed that the average net weight of the 60?
packages examined was 15.02 ounces. Examination of a sample of the Brook-?
field butter by said bureau showed that the average net weight of the 60?
packages examined was 15.11 ounces.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that the statements, to wit, " One Pound Net" and " 1 Lb. Net Weight," borne?
on the respective cartons containing the article concerning the net weight?
thereof, were false and misleading in that the said statements represented the?
net weight of the article to be 1 pound, whereas, in truth and in fact, the?
net weight of the said article was less than 1 pound. Misbranding was al??
leged for the further 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, since the stated quantity, to wit, " One Pound?
Net" or " 1 Lb. Net Weight," as the case might be, was incorrect and repre??
sented more than the actual contents of the respective packages.
On March 14, 1922, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on be??
half of the defendant concern, and the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.