12506. Adulteration and misbranding- of butter. V. S. v. Michael F. Dona- 
hue. Plea of guilty. Fine, $1. (F. & D. Nos. 17426, 17694. I. S. Nos. 
1833-v, 10851-v,  10853-v.)
On November 13, 1923, the United States attorney for the District of Ver- 
mont, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District 
Court of the United States for said district a consolidated information against 
Michael F. Donahue, Essex, Vt., alleging shipment by said defendant, in viola- 
tion of the food and drugs act, in various consignments, namely, on or about 
November 13, 1922, and March 5 and 22, 1923, respectively, from the State of 
Vermont into the State of New Hampshire, of quantities of butter which was- 
adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: " Donahue's 
Creamery Butter    *    *    *   Manufactured By M. F. Donahue Essex, Vermont.''
Analysis of a sample of the article from each shipment by the Bureau of 
Chemistry of this department sho<ved that it was deficient in butterfat and 
that the shipments of November 13, 1922, and March 22, 1923, contained ex- 
cessive moisture.
Adulteration of the product consigned November 13, 1922, was alleged in- 
the information for the reason that a substance, to wit, excessive moisture, had 
been mixed and packed with the article so as to lower and reduce and inju- 
riously affect its quality and strength, for the further reason that a substance, 
to wit, excessive water, had been substituted in part for creamery butter, which* 
the article purported to be, and for the further reason that a valuable con- 
stituent of the article, to wit, butterfat, had been in part abstracted.
Adulteration was alleged with respect to the shipments of March 5 and 22, 
1923, for the reason that a product deficient in butterfat and which contained ex- 
cessive moisture, with respect to the product consigned March 22, 1923, and a 
product deficient in butterfat, with respect to the product consigned March 5, 
1923, had been substituted for creamery butter, which the article purported 
to be.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the product involved in all the 
consignments for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Creamery Butter," 
borne on the* packages containing the article, was false and misleading in that 
the said statement represented that the article consisted wholly of creamery 
butter, 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 
creamery butter, whereas it did not so consist, but a portion of the article 
consisted of a product deficient in butterfat and [which] contained excessive 
moisture, and the remainder thereof consisted of a product deficient in 
butterfat.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the product consigned November 13, 
1922, for the further reason that it was a product low in butterfat and which 
contained excessive moisture prepared in imitation of and offered for sale and 
sold under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, creamery butter.
On March 17, 1924, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the consolidated 
information, and the court imposed a fine of $1.
HOWARD M. GORE, Secretary of Agriculture.