13995. Misbranding:  of  butter.     V.   S.  v.  H.  Hamilton,  R.  Ii.  Autrey,  J. H.
Studdert, Jesse Andrews, Jos. B\ Meyer, B. A. Reisner, and D 
Rossi, Trustees, Trading: as Magnolia Dairy Products Co. Tried 
to the court.    Judgment of guilty.    Pine, $10 and costs.    (F. & D.
No. 15006.    I. S. No. 2881-t.)
On January 21, 1922, the United States attorney for the Southern District of 
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District 
Court of the United States for said district an information against H. Hamil- 
ton, R. L. Autrey, J. H. Studdert, Jesse Andrews, Jos. F. Meyer, B. A. Reisner, 
D. Rossi, trustees, trading as Magnolia Dairy Products Co., Houston, Tex., 
alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the food and drugs act as
[Supplement 210
amended, on or about May 18, 1921, from the State of Texas into the State of 
Louisiana, of a quantity of butter which was misbranded. The article was 
labeled in part: " Contents One Pound Net * '* * Magnolia Brand Butter 
Manufactured By Magnolia Dairy Products Co., Houston, Texas."
Examination by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department showed that 
the average net weight of 20 prints was 15.2 ounces.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
the statement, to wit, "Contents One Pound Net," borne on the cartons con- 
taining the article, was false and misleading, in that the said cartons did not 
each contain 1 pound net of butter but did contain a less quantity, and for the 
further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead 
the purchaser thereof into the belief that each of the cartons contained 1 pound 
net of butter, whereas each of said cartons cpntained a less quantity. Mis- 
branding was alleged for the further reason that the article was food in package 
form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously 
marked on the outside of the package.
On November 5, 1925, a jury having been waived by the parties, the case 
came on for trial before the court. After the submission of evidence and 
arguments by counsel, the court entered a judgment of guilty against the defen- 
dants and imposed a fine of $10 and costs.
B. W. DTJNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.