12407. Misbranding of   butter.     U.   S.   v.   Sugar   Creek   Creamery   Co.,   a
Corporation.     Plea of guilty.     Fine, $200.     (F. & D. No. 17933.    I. S. 
Nos.  6432-v, 6433-v.)
On January 17, 1924, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Missouri, 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 Sugar Creek Creamery Co., a corporation, trading at St. Louis, Mo., al- 
leging shipment by said company in violation of the food and drugs act as 
amended, in two consignments, namely, on or about June 14 and June 19, 1923, 
respectively, from the State of Missouri into the State of Illinois, of a quan- 
tity of butter which was misbranded. The article was labeled in part: 
"Sugar Creek Butter * * * One Pound Net Weight * * * Sugar Creek 
Creamery Co.  * *  *  Sugar Creek Butter   General Office   Danville,  Ill."
Examination of a sample taken from each of the consignments by the Bu- 
reau of Chemistry of this department showed an average shortage in weight 
of 1.9 per cent and 1.87 per cent respectively.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that the statement, to wit, "One Pound Net Weight," borne on the packages, 
containing the said article, was false and misleading in that the said state- 
ment represented that each of the said packages contained 1  pound  net 
weight of the article, and for the further reason that it was labeled as- 
aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that 
each of the packages contained 1 pound net weight of the article, whereas 
in truth and in fact, each of said packages did not contain 1 pound net weight 
of the said article but did contain a less amount.   Misbranding was alleged; 
for the further reason that the article was food in package form and the- 
quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the- 
outside of the package.
On April 9, 1924, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine- of $200 and costs..
HOWARD M. GORE, Secretary of Agriculture.