10860. Misbranding of twna fish. V. S. T. White Star Canning Co., a Corpo??
ration. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (F. & D. No. 12808. I. S. Nos.?
12456-r,  17335-r,   17336-r,   17337-r.)
On June 13, 1921, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
California, 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 White Star Canning Co., a corporation, San Pedro, Calif., alleging ship??
ment by said company, on or about September 15, 1919, from the State of Cali??
fornia into the State of Ohio, and on or about September 8, 1919, from the State?
of California into the District of Columbia, of quantities of tuna fish, which in?
each instance was misbranded. The Ohio shipment was labeled in part: " Radio?
Brand Blue Fin Tuna * * * Net Weight 13 oz." The District of Colum??
bia shipments were labeled in part: "White Star Brand Chicken of the Sea?
Tuna Fish Net Contents 13 Ounces; " " Silver Foam Brand Calif. Tuna Net?
Contents 13 Oz;" and "Radio Brand Blue Fin Tuna * * * Net Weight?
13 Oz."
Examination of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed an average net weight of 11.82 ounces on 9 cans from the shipment?
to Ohio; an average net weight of 12.35 ounces on 96 cans of the White Sta r?
brand shipped into the District of Columbia; an average net weight of 12.4 5?
ounces on 96 cans of the Silver Foam brand shipped into the District of?
Columbia; and an average net weight of 12.29 ounces on 448 cans of the Radio?
brand shipped into the District of Columbia.
Misbranding of the article in each shipment was alleged in the information?
for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Net Weight 13 Oz," or " Net?
Contents 13 Ounces," or " Net Contents 13 Oz," borne on the labels attached?
to the cans containing the article regarding it, was false and misleading in?
that it represented that the contents of each can weighed 13 ounces net, and?
for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to de??
ceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that the contents of each can?
weighed 13 ounces net, whereas, in fact and in truth, the contents of each can?
did not weigh 13 ounces net, but did weigh a less amount, and for the further?
reason that the said 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 June 26, 1922, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on be??
half of the defendant corporation, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
478	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 148,