13502. Adulteration  and  misbranding?  of butter.     U.  S.  v. Joseph  A.  Lung,
Florence   Colclessor,   John   Heddington,   Dan   AsUcraft,   and   I.on 
Smith   (J.   A.   Long-   Co.).     Pleas   of  guilty.     Fine,   S.'JOO  and   costs.
(P. & D. No.  19271.     I.  S. Nos.  2233-v, 2326-v,  2327-v.)
On May 15, 1925, the grand jurors of the United States within and for the 
District of Indiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, upon 
presentment by the United States attorney for said district, returned in the 
District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an indictment 
against Joseph A. Long, Florence Colclessor, John Heddington, Dan Ashcraft, 
and Lou Smith, trading as J. A. Long Co., Union City, Ind., charging shipment 
by said defendants, in violation of the food and drugs act, in various con- 
signments, namely, on June 7 and 30, and August 9, 1923, respectively, from 
the State of Indiana into the State of New York, of quantities of butter which 
was adulterated and a portion of which was also misbranded. One shipment 
was contained in packages labeled in part: " Pure Creamery Butter." Two 
shipments of the said article was contained in tubs and was billed or invoiced 
as butter.
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY ?? [Supplement 201
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that the said samples averaged 16.25 per cent, 16.44 per cent, 
and 15.86 per cent, respectively, of moisture and 79.17 per cent, 78.96 per -cem% 
and79.93 per cent, respectively, of milk fat.
Adulteration of the article was charged in the information for the reason 
that a product deficient in milk fat and containing an excessive amount of 
moisture had been substituted for butter, which the said 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 of milk fat, as prescribed by the act 
of March 4, 1923.
Misbranding of the portion of the product contained in packages was charged 
for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Pure Creamery Butter," borne on 
the said packages, was false and misleading, in that the said statement repre- 
sented that the article consisted wholly of pure creamery butter, and for the 
further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead 
the purchaser into the belief that it consisted wholly of pure creamery butter, 
whereas it did not so consist but did consist of a product deficient in milk fat 
and containing an excessive amount of moisture. Misbranding of the said 
portion of the product was charged for the reason that the statement, to wit, 
" Butter," borne on the packages, was false and misleading in that it repre- 
sented that the 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 it was a product which did not contain 80 per cent by weight 
of milk fat but did contain a less amount.
On June 2, 1925, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the indictment, 
and the court imposed a fine of $300 and costs.
R. W. DTJNXAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.