18838.  Misbranding of butter.    U. S. v. Mistletoe Creameries (Inc.).    Plea 
of gruilty.    Fine, $25.     (P. & D. No. 26621.    I. S. Nos. 504, 506, 520, 582.)
Sample packages of butter from the shipments herein described having been 
found to contain less than the weight declared on the label, the Secretary of 
Agriculture reported the matter to the United States attorney for the Western 
District of Texas.
On September 10, 1931, the United States attorney filed in the District Court 
of the United States for the district aforesaid an information against the 
Mistletoe Creameries (Inc.), trading at El Paso, Tex., alleging shipment by said 
-company, in violation of the food and drugs act as amended, in various consign- 
ments on or about August 21, September 4, and September 11, 1930, from the 
State of Texas into the State of New Mexico, of quantities of butter which 
was misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled in part: "Mistletoe 
Oreamery Butter Four Quarters * * * Manufactured by Mistletoe Cream- 
?eries, Inc., El Paso, Texas, One Pound Net." The remainder of the said article 
was labeled in part: " Extra Fancy Mistletoe Creamery Butter * * * Mis- 
tletoe Creameries, Inc., El Paso, Texas, Four Ounces Net."
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded in that the 
statements, to wit, " One Pound Net," with respect to a portion of the product, 
and the statement, to wit, " Four Ounces Net," with respect to the remainder 
thereof, borne on the labels, were false and misleading in that the said state- 
ments represented that each of the packages contained 1 pound net, or 4 ounces 
net, as the case might be, of butter; 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 said packages contained 1 pound net, or 4 ounces net, 
as the case might be, of butter; whereas each of the said packages did not con- 
tain the amount declared on the label, but did contain in each of practically all 
of the said packages, less than so labeled. Misbranding was alleged for the fur- 
ther 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 
packages.
On September 12, 1931, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
toehalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
ARTHXJB M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.