12891. Misbranding of bakery products. TJ. S. v. the Iiindquist Cracker 
Co., a Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $120. (1?. & D. No. 
18465.    I. S. Nos. 8540-v, 8541-v, 11337-v, 11338-v, 11342-v, 11344-v.)
On June 20, 1924, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado, 
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 Lind^ 
quist Cracker Co., a corporation, Denver, Colo., alleging shipment by said 
company, in violation of the food and drugs act, in various consignments 
between the dates of December 10, 1923, and January 4, 1924, from the State 
of Colorado into the States of Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas, respectively,, 
of quantities of bakers' products which were misbranded. The articles were 
labeled variously: " Chocolate Bon Bons Net Weight 4 Ozs. Lindquist's Trade 
Mark Sincerity Denver, Colo.;" " Sincerity Lemon Wafers The Lindquist 
Cracker Co. Denver, Colo. * * * Minimum Net Weight 6% Ozs.; " " Lemon 
Snaps The Lindquist Cracker Co. Denver, Colo. Net Weight 4 Ounces;" " Sin- 
cerity Cocoanut Dainties The Lindquist Cracker Co. Denver, Colo. Minimum 
Net Weight 7% Oz.' 
Examination of the articles by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department 
showed that the packages contained less than the quantity declared on the 
respective labels.
Misbranding of the articles was alleged in the information for the reason 
that the statements, to wit, "Net Weight 4 Ozs.," "Minimum Net Weight, 6% 
Ozs.," "Minimum Net Weight 7% Oz.," borne on the labels attached to the 
packages containing the respective articles, were false and misleading, in that 
the said statements represented that the said packages contained 4 ounces, 6% 
ounces, or iy2 ounces, as the case might be, of the respective articles, and for 
the further reason that the articles were labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser into the belief that the packages contained 4 ounces, 
6% ounces, or iy2 ounces, as the case might be, of the respective articles, 
whereas, in truth and in fact, the said packages did not contain the amounts 
declared on the respective labels but did contain less amounts. 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 December 2, 1924, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $120.
W. M. JAKDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.