14663. Misbranding  of candy.    U.  S. v. Brown  & Haley.    Plea  of guilty. , 
Fine, $00 and costs.     (P. & D. No. 19767.    I. S. Nos. 659-x to 667-x, incl.)
On June 19, 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 
Brown & Haley, a corporation, Tacoma, Wash., alleging shipment by said 
company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, in various con- 
signments, on or about November 3, 19, and 25, and December 15 and 19, 1925, 
respectively, from the State of Washington into the State of California, of 
quantities of candy which was misbranded. The article was labeled, variously: 
" Oriole Chocolate Peppermint Creams 8 Ounces Net Brown & Haley; " " Oriole 
* * * Betty Lou Chocolates Brown & Haley Tacoma, Wash. One Pound 
Net;" " Oriole Medley of Sweets Brown & Haley Tacoma 16 Ozs. Net; " 
" Oriole Opera Creams 10 Ounces Net Oriole Brown & Haley; " " B and H 
Criterion Chocolates Brown & Haley Tacoma One Pound Net;" " Oriole Bel- 
mont Chocolates * * * Brown & Haley * * * One Pound Net;" " B H 
Brown & Haley Assorted Chocolates One Pound Choice Pack; " " Oriole Fruit 
And Nut Creams Caramels And Others Mary Ann Chocolates One Pound Net 
Brown & Haley; " " Oriole Variety Chocolates * * * Brown & Haley * * * 
One Pound Net."
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
the statements regarding the quantity of the contents of the packages con- 
taining the said article, namely, "8 Ounces Net," "One Pound Net," "16 
Ozs. Net," " 10 Ounces Net," " One Pound," as the case might be, borne on the 
labels, were false and misleading, in that the said statements represented that 
the packages contained the amount of the product declared thereon, and for the 
further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and 
mislead the purchaser into the belief that each of the packages contained the 
amount declared thereon, whereas each of said packages did not contain the 
amount represented by the label but did contain a less amount. 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 September 25, 1926, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $90 and costs.
W. M. JABDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.