14662. Adulteration and misbranding of butter.     V. S. v. West Coast Gro 
cery Co.     Plea of guilty.     Fine, $15 and costs.     (F.  & D. No.  19695. 
I. S. No. 23409-v.)
On September 11, 1926, the United States attorney for the Western District 
of Washington, 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 West Coast Grocery Co., a corporation, Tacoma, Wash., alleging shipment 
by said company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, on or 
about May 4, 1925, from the State of Washington into the Territory of Alaska, 
of a quantity of butter which was adulterated and misbranded. The article 
was labeled in part: " Creamery Butter This Can Contains Two Pounds Of 
Bradner's Jersey Creamery Butter."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
a substance containing less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat had been 
substituted for butter, a product which must 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. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that a 
valuable constituent of the article, to wit, milk fat, had been in part abstracted.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " Cream- 
ery Butter," and " This Can Contains Two Pounds of Bradner's Jersey Cream- 
ery Butter," borne on the tins containing the article, were false and misleading, 
in that the said statements represented that the article was butter, to wit, a 
product containing not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat as prescribed 
by law, and that each of said tins contained 2 pounds of butter, and for the 
further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead 
the purchaser into the belief that each of the said tins contained butter, to wit, 
a product containing not less than 80 per cent by weight of milk fat, and that 
each of the said tins contained 2 pounds of butter, whereas the said article 
contained less than 80 per cent of miik fat and each of a number of said tins 
contained less than 2 pounds of butter. Misbranding was alleged for the 
further reason that the article was an imitation of and was offered for sale 
under the distinctive name of another article, and for the further reason that 
it was food in package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly 
and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.
On October 1, 1926, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $15 and costs.
W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.
1