10888.?Misbranding of molasses.    XI. S. v. Alexander Molasses Co., a Corpo?
ration.     Plea  of grnilty.    Fine, $200 and  costs.     (F.  & D.  No.  15443.?
I.  S. Ncs. 10S52-t, 10853-t
On January 14, 1921, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
Ohio, 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 the?
Alexander Molasses Co., a corporation, trading at Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging?
shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended,?
on or about October 4, 1920, from the State of Ohio into the State of Califor??
nia, of quantities of molasses which was misbranded. The article was labeled?
in part:" Dove Brand * * * Molasses No. 5 Can. Contains 4 Lbs. 10 Oz.?
Avd." (or "No. 10 Can Contains 9 Lbs. 3 Oz. Avd.") "Alexander Molasses?
Company General Offices, Chicago."
Examination of samples of the arfcle by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed that the average net weight of 100 of the small cans was?
4 pounds 7.48 ounces, and that the average net weight of 70 of the large cans?
was 8 pounds 7.29 ounces.
M'sbranding of the article was alleged in substance in the information for?
the reason that the statements, to wit, " Contains 9 Lbs. 3 Oz. Avd." and?
" Contains 4 Lbs. 10 Oz. Avd.," borne on the labels attached to the respective-?
sized cans containing the article, regarding the said article, were false and?
misleading in that the said statements represented that each of the said cans?
contained not less than 9 pounds 3 ounces or 4 pounds 10 ounces, as the case?
might be, of the article, and for the further reason that it was labeled as?
aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that each?
of the said cans contained 9 pounds 3 ounces or 4 pounds 10 ounces, as the case?
might be, of the said article, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of said cans?
did contain less of the said article than the amount stated on the said labels.?
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was food in?
package form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicu??
ously marked on the outside of the said packages.
On June 30, 1922, a plea of guilty to the information was entered, on behalf?
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $200 and costs.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N.J. 10851-10900.]    SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.      493