14522. Adulteration and misbranding- of butter. IT. S. v..' Central Produce Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (F. & D. No. 19652. T. S. No. 7484-v.) .. : . - 'y...:,:?> n.~ ^\- n ;:;.;. x -? ?;...?.? . ? w; 'tt:r^Kfjyt5, ?/??-?- On August 11, 1925, the United States attorney for the Western-District of Texas, 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 Central Produce Co., a corporation,1'Temple, .Tex., alleging 'Mhigment.by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, on or about'Febru-' ary 3, 1924, from the State of Texas into the State of Louisiana," of a" quantity of butter which was adulterated and misbranded: The article1'was invoiced as creamery butter.; ? . " " :','.''' '"?' ""..;;"; u;"" : ? " ?:..;?????::'< .hnss ..i^ToU r.<> Adulteration of the article Was alleged in the informatiotf fi)r-the'reason that a product deficient in milk'fat,'in- that'it contained iess^tha^n g6 per cent by weight of milk fat, had been substituted for' butter, a product ^Wffich must 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 article was an imitation' of and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of anotheP.&rtielei; to1 wit,; creamery butter, in that it contained less than 80 per cent byf'weigM'M milk fat, the minimum milk fat required by-law. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was food in package form ahdSMe-^iuiantity-df" the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of,: the package. : -'?.'??'.??.'?''".'" ?''?"?'??'';\,''iuy'".'i ;"?????/->????*?' *uwt*.n ,/':,,, . On June 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,:!% f^E?'1 " '-?? .'*' ; :W. M.JABDINE, Secretary of Agriculture."'