1351}).  Misbranding:    of    oysters    and    adulteration    and    misbranding    of 
scallops.     V.  S.  v. Albert X,. Doughty.     Plea  of guilty.     Fine   ?KO
(F. & D. No. 19256.     I.  S. Nos. 2355-v, 2356-v,  2977-v,  15883-v,  15884-v )
On March 21, 1925, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Virginia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
Albert L. Doughty, trading at Willis Wharf, Va., alleging shipment by said 
defendant, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, in various 
consignments, on or about January 29 and 30, 1924, respectively, from the 
State of Virginia into the State of New York, of quantities of oysters which 
were misbranded and of a quantity of scallops which were adulterated and 
misbranded, and on or about January 29, 1924, from the State of Virginia 
into the State of Pennsylvania and New York, respectively, of quantities of 
scallops which were adulterated,and misbranded. The cans were labeled in 
part: " Minimum Volume 1 Gallon."
Examination of the articles by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department 
showed that the scallops contained added water and that the cans contained 
less than 1 gallon of the respective products.
Adulteration of the scallops was alleged in the information for the reason 
that water had been mixed and packed therewith so as to lower and reduce and 
injuriously affect its quality, and for the further reason that added water had 
been substituted for scallops, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to both products for the reason that 
the statement, to wit; " Minimum Volume 1 Gallon," borne on the cans con- 
taining the respective articles, was false and misleading, in that the said 
statement represented that each of said cans contained 1 gallon of scallops 
or oysters, as the case might be, and for the further reason that they were 
labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the 
belief that each of said cans contained 1 gallon of scallops or oysters, as the 
ease might be, whereas each of said cans did not contain 1 gallon of the 
respective products but did contain a less amount. Misbranding was alleged 
for the further reason that the articles were food in package form and the 
quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the 
outside of the packages.
On May 15, 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.