11668. Adulteration and misbranding of chocolate coating. V. S. v. Handy?
Chocolate Co., a Corporation. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine,?
$25.     (F. & D. No. 17413.    I. S. Nos. 205-v, 1309-v, 4506-v.)
On May 29,1923, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts,?
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 Handy Choco??
late Co., a corporation, Springfield, Mass, alleging shipment by said company,?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, in various consignments, namely, on or?
about June 8, July 14, and August 15, 1922. respectively, from the State of?
Massachusetts into the States of Connecticut, Ohio, and Maryland, respectively,?
of quantities of chocolate coating which was adulterated and misbranded. The?
article was contained in shipping cases, a portion of which were labeled in part:?
"100 Lbs. Net Handy's Pride Chocolate Coating Springfield, Mass. U. S. A."?
or " Handy's Chocolate Company Spr'ngfield, Mass. U. S. A. * * * Handy's?
* * * Chocolate Coating." A portion of the article bore the statement im??
printed on the cakes, " Miner's Incomparable Coating."
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it was a sweet chocolate containing an excess of cocoa?
shells.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
a substance, to wit, cacao shells, had .been mixed and packed therewith so as to?
lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been?
substituted in part for chocolate coating, which the said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " Choco??
late Coating," borne on the cases containing a portion of the article, and the?
statement, to wit, " Coating," borne on the remainder of the article, regarding?
the said article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were false?
and misleading in that the said statement represented that the article was?
chocolate coating, a product composed wholly of chocolate, and for the further?
reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead?
the purchaser into the belief that it was a product composed wholly of choco??
late, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not a product composed wholly of?
chocolate but was a product composed in part of cacao shells. Misbranding?
was alleged with respect to the portion of the article labeled " Chocolate Coat??
ing " for the further reason that it was a product composed in part of cacao?
shells, prepared in imitation of chocolate coating, and was offered for sale and?
sold under the distinctive name of another article.
On June 8, 1923, a plea of nolo contendere to the information was entered?
by the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
HOWARD M. GORE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.