11748. Adulteration and misbranding; of butter.    TT. S. v. 155 Cases of But 
ter. Consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product 
released under bond. (F. & D. No. 17650. I. S. No. 692-v. S. No. 
B^4451.)
On or about July 13, 1923, 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 condemnation of 155 cases of butter at Washington, D. C, 
alleging that the article was being offered for sale and sold in the District 
-of Columbia, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the 
Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: " Armour's * * * 
Cloverbloom Creamery Butter   *   *    *   1 Lb. Net Weight."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that a 
substance, to wit, excessive moisture, had been mixed and packed therewith 
so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength and 
had been substituted m whole or in part for butter, which the article purported 
to be Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that a valuable con- 
stituent of the article, to wit, butterfat, had been in whole or in part ab- 
stracted.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, "But- 
ter," borne on each of the packages containing the said article, was false and 
misleading, in that it represented that each of the said packages contained 
butter, and for the further reason that the article was labeled " Butter " so 
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that each of the said 
packages contained butter, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of said packages 
did not contain butter but did contain a product containing excessive moisture 
and deficient in butterfat.
On August 20, 1923, Armour & Co., claimant, having admitted the allega- 
tions of the libel and consented to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemna- 
tion 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 $2,500, in conformity 
With section 10 of the act.
HOWAED M. GOEE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture