11078. Adulteration and misbranding of butter. TJ. S. v. IS Cases of But??
ter. Consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product?
released under bond. (F, & D. No. 16769. I. S. No. 1216-v. S. No.?
E-4140.)
On August 25, 1922, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Supreme Court?
of the District aforesaid, holding a district court, a libel for the seizure and con??
demnation of 18 cases of butter, remaining unsold at Washington, D. C, alleg??
ing that the article had been shipped by the Cudahy Packing Co., from Kansas?
City, Mo., on or about July 7, 1922, and transported from the State of Missouri?
into the District of Columbia, and charging adulteration and misbranding in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act.   The article was labeled in part: " Sun-
N.J. 11051-11100.]     SERVICE  AND REGULATORY  ANISrOUZsTCEMENTS.	4&
light Creamery Butter Sunlight Creameries General Offices, Chicago, Illinois?
Sunlight."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that a?
substance, to wit, excessive water, had been mixed and packed therewith so as?
to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength and had been,?
substituted wholly or in part for butter, which the said article purported to be.?
Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that a valuable constituent of?
the article, to wit, butterfat, had been wholly or in part abstracted.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Sunlight?
Creamery Butter * * *," borne on the cartons containing the article, was?
false and misleading in that the said statement represented that each of the?
said cartons contained creamery butter, 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 said cartons contained creamery butter, whereas, in?
truth and in fact, each of said cartons did not contain creamery butter. Mis??
branding was alleged for the further reason that the article was an imitation?
of and offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, to wit,?
creamery  butter.
On September 16, 1922, the Western Creamery Co., claimant, having ad??
mitted the allegations of the libel and consented to the entry of a decree,?
judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by?
the court that the product be released to the said claimant upon payment of?
the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of $200,?
in conformity with section 10 of the act.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.