12351. Adulteration and misbranding: of oysters.    TJ. S. v. Charles Neubert
(Charles  Neubert  &  Co.).     Plea  of  guilty.     Fine,  $100  and   posts.
(F. & D   No. 18362.    I.  S. Noa. 2305-v, 4991-v,  4992-v,  10544-v,  19332-v, 
19333-v.)
On April 30, 1924, the "United States attorney for the District of Maryland, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court 
of the United States for said district an information against Charles Neubert, 
trading as Charles Neubert & Co., Baltimore, Md., alleging shipment by said 
defendant, in violation of the food and drugs act, in various consignments, 
namely, on or about November 21 and 22, 1923, respectively, into the State of 
Indiana, and on or about November 21, 1928, into the States of Pennsylvania 
and Maine, respectively, of quantities of oysters which were adulterated and 
misbranded. The article was labeled in part: (Can) "Neuberts Baltimore 1 
Gal. Standards Oysters."
Examination of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department 
showed that an excessive amount of free liquor was present and that the 
oysters had been soaked with added water.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
a substance, to wit, water, had been mixed and packed with the said article 
so as to lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality, for the further 
reason that a substance, to wit, added water, had been substituted in part for 
oysters, which the said article purported to be, and for the further reason that 
a valuable constitutent of the article, to wit, oyster solids, had been in part 
abstracted.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Oysters," 
borne on the cans containing the article, regarding the said article, was false 
and misleading in that it represented that the article consisted wholly of 
oysters, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to de- 
ceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it consisted wholly of 
oysters, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not consist wholly of oysters but 
did consist in part of added water.
On May 26, 1924, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs.
HOWARD M. GOKE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.