1571.S. Adullci'iition and misbri! JHHIIS' of butter. 1J. S. v. Mandan Creamery 
?SL Produce Co. Plea of u?Ut>. Fine. $50. (F & D. No. 21593. I. S. 
i\us. G4!M5-.\, 54U7-X, 3498-x, 5535-x, 7701-x to 7700-x, inel.)
On April 30, 1927, the United 'states attorney for the District of North 
Dakota, 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 
Mandan Creamery & Produce Co., a corporation, Mandan, N. D., alleging ship- 
ment by ^*aid company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, in 
part on or aboul April 10, 1926, and in part on or about May 17, 1926, from 
the State of North Dakota into the State of Massachusetts, of quantities of 
butter which was adulterated and misbranded. A portion of the article was 
contained in cartons and tubs, labeled in part, " Creamery Butter." The re- 
mainder of the said article was contained in tubs, a portion of .which were 
labeled, " Net 63 Lbs."
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that a 
substance purporting to be butter, but which was not butter in that it con- 
tained 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 defined and prescribed by the act of March 4, 1923.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Cream- 
ery Butter," borne on a number of the packages containing the article, was
false and misleading in that the said statement represented that the article 
was butter, to wit, a product containing not less than SO per cent by weight of 
milk fat as prescribed by law, and for the further reason that it was labeled, 
" Creamery Butter," so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief 
that it was butter, to wit, a product containing not less than 80 per cent oy 
weight of milk fat as prescribed by law, whereas it was not butter as prescribed 
by law, but was a product containing less than 80 per cent by weight of 
milk fat. Misbranding was alleged with respect to a portion of the article fov 
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 pack- 
age, in that the package bore no statement as to the quantity of the contents.. 
On March 8, 1928, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
R. W. DITNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture*.