3 0883. Adulteration and misbranding- of tuna fisli. U. S. v. Henry I/. Staf??
ford, Herbert S. Stafford, and Albert Wedxim (The Stafford Pack??
ing Co.). Pleas of g-uilty. Fine, $50. (F. & D. No. 14940. I. S. Nos.?
1-1-,  13994-r.)
On September 20, 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 Henry L. Stafford, Herbert S. Stafford, and Albert Wedum, trading?
as the Stafford Packing Co., Wilmington, Calif., alleging shipment by said?
defendants, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about October 28,?
1919, from the State of California into the State of New York, *of a quantity?
of canned tuna fish which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was?
labeled in part: (Cans) "De Luxe Brand Striped California Tuna * * *?
Packed by Stafford Packing Co. Wilmington, Cal."
Examination of the consignment by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that a large number of the cans contained Bomia.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that Bonita fish had been mixed and packed therewith, so as to lower and?
reduce and injuriously affect its quality and had been substituted in part?
for California striped tuna fish wh'ch the said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Cali??
fornia Striped Tuna," borne on the label attached to the cans containing the?
article, regarding the said article, was false and misleading in that the said?
statement represented that the article consisted wholly of California striped?
tuna fish, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid, so as?
to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it consisted wholly
490	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 148,
of California striped tuna fish, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not so con??
sist, but did consist in part of Bonlta fish. Misbranding was alleged for the?
further reason that the article was a product composed in part of Bonita fish,?
and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of another article,?
to wit, California striped tuna.
On June 12, 1922, the defendants entered pleas of gu'.lty to the information,,?
and the court imposed a fine of $50.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.