30258. Misbranding and alleged Adulteration of canned sbrlmp. U. S. v. W. M. 
Brooks Packing Co., Inc. Demurrer and motion for bill of particulars 
overruled. Tried to a jury. Verdict of guilty on one misbranding 
count and not guilty on adulteration count and remaining misbranding 
count.    Fine, $200.    (F. & D. No. 42567.    Sample Nos. 20556-C, 10565-D.)
This product was represented to have been produced under the supervision 
of this Department, whereas it was not.
On October 5, 1938, the United States attorney for the Southern District of 
Florida, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis- 
trict court an information against the W. M. Brooks Packing Co., Inc., Fernan- 
dina, Fla., alleging shipment by said company in violation of the Food and 
Drugs Act on or about December 9, 1936, from the State of Florida into the 
State of Massachusetts of a quantity of canned shrimp which was alleged to 
be adulterated; and on or about September 8, 1937, from the State of Florida 
into the State of Pennsylvania of a quantity of canned shrimp which was 
misbranded.   The article was labeled in part: "Florida Sea Brand Shrimp."
Count 1 of the information charged that the product shipped December 9, 
1936, was adulterated in that it consisted in part of a decomposed animal 
substance.
Count 2 charged that the product shipped September 8, 1937, was misbranded 
in that the statement on the label, "Production supervised by the U. S. Food 
and Drugs Administration," was false and misleading in that the said state- 
ment represented that the article had been produced under the supervision of 
the United States Food and Drug Administration; whereas it had not 
been produced under the supervision of the United States Food and Drug 
Administration.
Count 3 charged that the latter shipment was misbranded further in that the 
above-quoted statement on the jar label indicated that the article conformed 
to the requirements of the law and the regulations of the Secretary of Agri- 
culture promulgated thereunder, namely, that the premises, equipment, sanita- 
tion, methods of handling, containers, and labels used in the production and 
packing of the article had been examined and inspected by inspectors designated 
by the Secretary of Agriculture for such purposes; whereas it did not conform 
to the requirements of the law and the said regulations, in that the premises, 
equipment, sanitation, methods of handling, container, and labels had not been 
so examined and inspected, and the article was so labeled without proper 
authority to indicate such conformity.
On October 19, 1938, the defendant filed a demurrer and a motion for a 
bill of particulars. On February 1, 1939, the demurrer and motion were argued 
and were overruled without opinion. On February 13, 1939, the case came on 
for trial before a jury and a verdict of guilty was returned on count 2 and 
not guilty on counts 1 and 3. On February 27, 1939, the defendant's motion 
to set aside the verdict was denied and the court imposed a fine of $200.
HAEBY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.