13420. Adulteration   and   misbranding   of   butter.      V.    S.   v.   John   H.    Stelle
(McLeansboro  Creamery  Co.).     Plea  of  guilty.     Pine, 850.     (F.  &
D. No. 19348.    I. S. No. 15414-v.)
At the May, 1925, term of the United States District Court within and for 
the Eastern District of Illinois, the United States attorney for said district, act- 
ing upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court 
aforesaid an information against John H. Stelle, trading as McLeansboro 
Creamery Co., McLeansboro, Ill., alleging shipment by said defendant, in viola- 
tion of the food and drugs act, on or about February 15, 1924, from the State 
of Illinois into the State of Massachusetts, of a quantity of butter which was 
adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: " Gold Label 
Fancy Creamery Butter Guaranteed Pure McLeansboro Creamery Co. Mc- 
Leansboro, Ill."
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that the average milk fat of 11 samples was 79.64 per cent.  '
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
a substance deficient in milk fat, in that it 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, which the said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Gold 
Label Fancy Creamery Butter," borne on the cartons containing the article, 
was false and misleading, in that the said statement represented that the ar- 
ticle was butter, a product containing not less than 80 per cent by weight of
53771-25 2
further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead 
the purchaser into the belief that it was butter, to wit, a product containing 
not less than SO per cent by weight of milk fat, whereas it was not butter, in 
that it contained less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat. Misbranding 
was alleged for the further reason that the article was an imitation of and was 
offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, butter.
On May 19, 1925, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine of $50.
R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.