22382. Adulteration and misbranding of butter. V. S. v. Nelson-Ricks 
Creamery Co. Plea of guilty. Pine, S30. (P. & D. no. 30289. Sample 
nos. 23149-A, 25099-A,  36119-A.)
This case was based on interstate shipments of two lots of butter that was 
deficient in milk fat and one lot that was short weight.
On January 26, 1934, the United States attorney for the District of Utah, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court 
an information against the Nelson-Ricks Creamery Co., a corporation, Salt 
Lake City, Utah, alleging shipment by said company, on or about November 4, 
1932, and May 11, 1933, from the State of Utah into the States of California 
and Nevada, of quantities of butter that was adulterated and misbranded, and 
on or about April 15, 1933, from the State of Utah into the State of California, 
of a quantity of butter that was misbranded. A part of one shipment was 
contained in fiber cases labeled, "Butter 68 Lbs. Net." The two other ship- 
ments consisted of print butter, labeled in part: " Banquet Better Butter Pas- 
teurized Nelson-Ricks Creamery Company Salt Lake City, Utah" and "Rose 
Bud Pasteurized Creamery Butter Net Weight One Pound The Cudahy Packing 
Co. Distributors ", respectively.
The information charged that two lots of the article were adulterated in that 
a product containing less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat had been sub- 
stituted for butter, a product which must contain not less than 80 percent by 
weight of milk fat as -defined by the act of March 4, 1923, which the article 
purported to be.
Misbranding of two lots found deficient in milk fat was alleged in that a 
part of one of the lots, and all of the remaining lot, were labeled " Butter ", 
which was false and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the pur- 
chaser, since it was not butter as defined by law. Misbranding of the third 
lot was alleged for the reason that the statement, " Net Weight One Pound ", 
borne on the cartons, was false and misleading, and tended to deceive and 
mislead the purchaser, since the cartons contained less than 1 pound; and for 
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 since the statement made was incorrect.
On May 31, 1934, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant 
company, and the court imposed a fine of $30.
M. L. WILSON, Aotmg Secretary of Agriculture.