13578. Adulteration and misbranding of canned peas. IT. S. v. Elkhart 
Lake Canning Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $10. (F. & D. No. 17251. 
I. S. Nos. 3776-v, 15027-t.)
On June 2, 1923, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wis- 
consin, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis- 
trict Court of the United States for said district an information against the 
Elkhart Lake Canning Co., a corporation, Elkhart Lake, Wis., alleging ship- 
ment by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, on
or about July 29, 1921, from tlie State of Wisconsin into the State of New 
York, and on or about July 11, 1922, from the State of Wisconsin into the 
State of Illinois, of quantities of canned peas, the former consignment of 
which was adulterated and misbranded and the latter of which was adulter- 
ated The consignment of July 29, 1921, was labeled in part: (Can) "Star, 
of Wisconsin Brand Wisconsin Extra Sifted Early June Peas * * * Con- 
tents 6 Lbs. 12 Ozs. * * * Packed By Elkhart Lake Canning Co., Elkhart 
Lake, Wisconsin." The other consignment was labeled in part: (Can) " Sifted 
Early June Peas."
Analyses of samples of the article by the .Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that it contained excessive liquid. Examination of 24 cans 
of the Star of Wisconsin brand showed an average net weight of 6 pounds
9.7 ounces.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that excessive water, or brine, had been substituted in part for peas, which 
the said article purported to be. 
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the portion of the product con- 
signed July 29, 1921, for the reason that the statement, to wit " 6 Lbs. 12 
Ozs.,*' borne on the labels, was false and misleading, in that it represented 
that each of the cans contained 6 pounds and 12 ounces of the article, and 
for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to de- 
ceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that each of the said cans 
contained 6 pounds and 12 ounces of the said article, whereas each of said 
cans did not contain the amount declared on the labels but did contain a less 
amount. Misbranding was alleged with respect to the said portion of the 
product consigned July 29,' 1921, for the further reason that it was food in 
package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicu- 
ously marked on the outside of the package.
On June 13, 1925, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $10.
It. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.