15351. Adulteration and alleged Misbranding of batter. U. S. v. 36 Cases 
of Bnttev. Consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture, Prod- 
uct released under bond.     (F. & D. No   21997.     I   S. Nos. 5937-x. 5939-x,
5940-x      S. No. 31.)
On July 16, 1927, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Oburt of the United States for said district a libel praying seizure and 
condemnation of 36 cases of butter, remaining in the original unbroken pack- 
ages at Buffalo, N. Y., alleging that the articles had been shipped by the 
Meriden Creamery Co., Kansas City, Mo., July 6, 1927, and transported from 
the State of Missouri into the State of New York, 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 deficient in butterfat and containing excessive moisture had been mixed 
and packed with and substituted wholly or in part for the said article, and in 
that a valuable constituent, butterfat, had been wholly or in part abstracted 
from the article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the article was an imitation of, 
or offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, and for the 
further reason that the following statements, borne on the labels, regarding the 
article or the ingredients or substances contained therein were false and mis- 
leading and deceived and misled the purchaser: " One Pound Net Weight- 
Farm Maid Creamery Butter;" " High Grade Gold Bar Creamery Butter One 
Pound Net-The Meriden Creamery Co. Kansas City, U. S. A. Hutchinson, 
Kans.;" and " 1 Lb. Net Weight." Misbranding was alleged for the further 
reason that the article was food in package form and the quantity of the con- 
tents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package, 
since the statement made was not correct.
On July 22, 1927, the Meriden Creamery Co., Kansas City, Mo., having ap- 
peared as claimant for the property ahd having consented to the entry of a 
decree, judgment was entered condemning the product as adulterated, and it 
was ordered by the court that the said product be released to the 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 reconditioned under the 
supervision of this department.
R. W. DUNLAP, Acting S&cretai-y af Agriculture.