13257. Adulteration and misbranding? of butter.     U. S.  v. 30 Cases of But 
ter. Consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product 
released under bond. (F. & D. No. 19802. I. S. No. 16315-v. S. No. 
E-5133.)
On or about February 6, 1925, the United States attorney for the Southern 
District of Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed 
in the District Court of the United States for said district a libel praying the 
seizure and condemnation of 30 cases of butter, remaining in the original 
unbroken packages at Savannah, Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped 
by the Beatrice Creamery Co., from Topeka, Kans., January 17, 1925, and 
transported from the State of Kansas into the State of Georgia, and charging 
adulteration and misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act.
.Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that a 
product deficient in milk fat and containing an excessive amount of moisture 
had been substituted for butter, which the article purported to be, and for the 
further reason that a product which contained less than 80 per cent by weight 
of milk fat had been substituted for butter, a product which should contain 
not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat, as prescribed by the act of 
March 4, 1923.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement " Butter," borne 
?on the packages containing thp article, was false and m sleading, in that it 
represented that the article consisted wnolly of butter,1 for the further reason 
that it was labeled " Butter " so as to' deceive and" mislead the purchaser into 
the belief that it consisted wholly of butter, and for the further reason that 
the statement "rButter,"' borne on the said ,packages, was false and misleading, 
in that it represented that the said article was butter, to wit, a product which 
should contain not less than 80 per' cent by weight of milk fat, as prescribed 
by' the act of March 4, 1923, whereas the said article did not consist wholly of 
"butter but did 
(
consfst of a'product deficient' in milk fat' and containing ex- 
cessive'moisture, andjit did not Qojataln 80 per qent by; w(eight,of milk fat but 
did contain a Jess amount. ,"'/" ?(>   j ,;,, ;, .,,,? r ' ^, .> ? ~'u M 
(J ,  
On February^ 25, 1925, the "Beatrice Creamery Co./ Topeka, Kans., claimant, 
naving admitted the material allegation's of the libel and having consented^ to 
the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, 
and it was ordered by the court that the product be released to the ,said 
claimant upon payment o?,the" costs, of, the proceedings and f:he execution of a 
?good and sufficient bond, in conformity with section 10 of the act, conditioned in 
part that it be reworked and relabeled so that it meet the requirements of the
'R.'W.' DUNLAP, Acting Secretary' of Agriculture.