14241. Adulteration and misbranding: of butter.     U.  S. v. H.  C.  Christians
Co.     Plea of gruilty.     Fine, $100 and costs.     (F. & D. No. 19723.     I. S.
Nos. 24254-v, 24257-v, 24258-v.)
On February 27, 1926, the United States attorney for the Northern District 
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
the H. C. Christians Co., a corporation, trading at Chicago, Ill., alleging ship- 
ment by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, in 
two consignments, on or about June 15 and 20, 1925, respectively, from the 
State of Illinois into the State of Maryland, of quantities of butter which was 
adulterated and misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled in part: 
"Edel's Trade Mark 'Bee Hive' Butter * * * One Pound Net Weight" 
The remainder of the said article was labeled in part: "Ayrshire Brand 
* * * Creamery Butter * * * Sold By H. C. Christians Co. Johnson 
Creek,  Wis.    *    *    *    Contents  1  Pound  Net."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the 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 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 statements " Butter " " One 
Pound Net Weight" or " Contents 1 Pound Net," as the case might be, borne 
on the packages containing the article, were false and misleading, in that they 
represented that the said article was butter, to wit, a product which should 
contain not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat as prescribed by law, 
and that the packages each contained 1 pound net thereof, and for the further
i
reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the pur- 
chaser into the belief that it was butter, to wit, a product which should con- 
tain not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat as prescribed by law, and 
that the packages each contained 1 pound net thereof, whereas it did not con- 
tain SO per cent by weight of milk fat but did contain a less amount, and the 
said packages contained less than 1 pound net of butter. Misbranding 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 April 22, 1926, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs.
C. F. MARVTN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.