12034. Misbranding- of coffee. IT. S. "v. the Independence Coffee & Spice Co.. a Corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine, $20. (F. & D. No. 18752. I. S. Nos. 8547-v, 1210S-V.) On December 2, 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 Independence Coffee & Spice Co., a corporation, Denver, Colo., alleging shipment by said com- pany, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, on or about January 8, 1924, from the State of Colorado into the State of New Mexico, and on or about January 11, 1924, from the State of Colorado into the State of Nebraska, of quantities of coffee which was misbranded. The article in the shipment of January 8 was labeled in part: (Package) " From Independence Coffee & Spice Co. Denver, Colo. * * * 30 1 Lb. Cans;" (can) "One Pound Steel Cut Breakfast Call Coffee." The article in the shipment of January 11 was labeled in part: (Package) "36 Lb. Tins Breakfast Call Coffee & Spice Co. Denver Colo.;" (can) " One Pound Steel Cut Breakfast Call Coffee * * * The Independence Coffee and Spice Co. Denver, Colo." Examination by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of 30 cans of the product from the first consignment and 216 cans from the other consign- ment showed that the average net weight of the cans examined from each ship- ment was 15.57 ounces. Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that the statements " 30 1 Lb. Cans " and " 36 Lb. Tins," borne on the pack- ages containing the respective consignments, and the statement " One Pound," borne on the cans contained in the said packages, were false and misleading, in that the said statements represented that the cans contained 1 pound of coffee, and for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that the cans contained 1 pound of coffee, whereas they did not but did contain a less amount. Mis- branding was alleged for the further reason that the article was food in pack- age 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 $20. W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.