14734. Adulteration and misbranding of butter.    U. S. v. 115 Boxes of But 
ter.     Decree  of  condemnation  and  forfeiture.     Product   released 
under bond.     (F. & D. No. 21276.    I. S. No. 2267-x.    S. No. C-5205.)
On August 6, 1926, the United States attorney for the Northern District of 
Ohio, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District 
Court of the United States for said district a libel praying seizure and con- 
demnation of 115 boxes of butter, at Cleveland, Ohio, alleging that the article 
had been shipped by Swift & Co., from Des Moines, Iowa, on or about July 
23, 1926, and transported from the State of Iowa into the State of Ohio, and 
charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act.
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 law.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement " Butter," borne 
on the packages containing the article, was false and misleading, in that the 
said statement represented that the article consisted wholly 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 it consisted wholly of butter, whereas 
it did not so consist but did consist of a product deficient in milk fat. Misbrand- 
ing was alleged for the further reason that the statement " Butter," borne 
on the label, was false and misleading, in that it 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 September 8, 1926, Swift & Co. having appeared as claimant for the 
property and having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of con- 
demnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that 
the product be released to the said claimant upon payment of the costs of 
the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of $500, conditioned 
in part that it be reworked in compliance with the requirements of the law.
W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.