11581. Adulteration and misbranding: of butter. U. S. v. Homestead 1? Creamery Co? a Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $6. (F. & D. No. 16407. I. S. Nos. 14123-t, 14124-t.) On November 1, 1922, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska,? acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court? of the United Slates for said district an information against the Homestead'? Creamery Co., a corporation, Mitchell, Nebr., alleging shipment by said com?? pany, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about Feb?? ruary 2, 1922, from the State of Nebraska into the State of Wyoming, of quan?? tities of butter which was adulterated and misbranded. A portion of the ar?? ticle was labeled in part: "Platte Valley Gold Creamery Butter Guaranteed'? Pure And Sweet Manufactured By The Homestead Creamery Mitchell, One? Pound Net Nebraska." The remainder of the said article was unlabeled. Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart?? ment showed that it was high in moisture and low in milk fat. Examination by? said bureau of 100 prints from the portion of the article labeled " One Pound1? Net" showed an average net weight of 15.34 ounces. Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that? a substance, to wit, water, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to lower -? and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and had been substituted in part? for butter which the said article purported to be. Adulteration was alleged? with respect to a portion of the article for the further reason that a valuable-? constituent thereof, to wit, milk fat, had been in part abstracted. Misbranding was alleged with respect to the unlabeled portion of the-? product for the reason that it was a product deficient in milk fat, which con?? tained an excessive amount of water, prepared in imitation of and offered for-? sale and sold under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, butter.? Misbranding was alleged with respect to the labeled portion of the said? product for the reason that the statement, " One Pound Net," borne on the? packages containing the article, regarding the said article, was false and mis?? leading in that the said statement represented that each of the packages con?? tained 1 pound net of the said article, and for the further reason that the ar?? ticle was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into? the belief that each of the said packages contained 1 pound net of the article,? whereas, in truth and in fact, each of said packages did not contain 1 pound'? net of the article, but did contain a less amount. Misbranding was alleged'? with respect to both lots of the said article for the reason that it was food in? package form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicu?? ously marked on the outside of the package. On June 11, 1928, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf of? the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $6. HOWAED M. GORF, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.