14487.  Adulteration and misbranding; of butter.     TJ. S. v. Herschel M. John- 
son (Johnson Creamery Co.).     Plea of gruilty.     Fine, $100.     (F. & D.
No. 19320.     I. S. Nos. 18838-v, 18839-v, 18841-v,  18843-v.)
On February 24, 1925, the United States attorney for the Eastern District      : 
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the      j 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
Herschel M. Johnson, trading as the Johnson Creamery Co.,  Stewardson, Ill.,
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY    "' . [Supplemi>nt22 
alleging shipment by said defendant, in violation of the food and drugs act, . 
in various consignments, on or about July 11 and 15, 1924, respectively, from ' 
the State of Illinois into the State of Missouri, of quantities of butter which 
was adulterated and misbrancled. A portion of the article was labeled in 
part: "The Clover Blossom Brand" (or "Country Maid Highest Quality"} 
" Fancy Creamery Butter * * * Johnson Creamery Co. Stewardson- 
Illinois." The remainder of the said article was labeled in part, "Pure 
Butter." 
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a product deficient in milk fat had been substituted for butter, which- 
the said article purported to be, and for the further. reason that a product 
containing 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.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, 
" Creamery Butter " and " Pure Butter," borne on the respective labels, were 
false and misleading, in that the said statements represented that the-article 
consisted wholly of creamery butter, or pure butter, as the case might be, 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 creamery 
butter, or pure butter, as the case might be, whereas it did not so consist 
but did consist of a product deficient in milk fat. Misbranding was alleged 
for the further reason that the statement, to wit, " Butter," borne on the 
label, was false and misleading, in that the statement represented 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 law, whereas it contained less- 
than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat.
On May 19, 1926, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine of $100.
W. M. JABDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.