6497. Adulteration and misbranding o? olive oil (so-called). U.S. * * *?
v. 5 Cases of Olive Oil (so-called). Consent decree of condemna??
tion and fox-feitnre.     Product ordered released  on bond.     (F. & D.
No. 8850.    I. S. No. 1356-p.    S. No. E-988.)
On March 12, 1918, the United States attorney for the District of Connec??
ticut, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District?
Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and con??
demnation of 5 cases of olive oil (so-called), remaining unsold in the original?
unbroken packages at Hartford, Conn., alleging that the article had been?
shipped on or about November 22, 1917, by S. Scaduto, New York, N. Y., and?
transported from the State of New York into the State of Connecticut, 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 cotton??
seed oil had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce, lower, and?
injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been substituted in part for?
olive oil, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement?
borne on the labels was false and misleading, that is to say, said labels bore?
the following words, " Olive Oil," which statement was intended to be of such?
a character as to induce the purchaser to believe that the product was olive?
oil, when, in truth and in fact, it was not; and for the further reason that it?
purported to be a foreign product, when, in truth and in fact, it was a product?
of domestic manufacture packed in the United States; and for the further?
reason that it was an imitation of, and was offered for sale under the dis??
tinctive name of, another article, to wit, olive oil; and for the further reason?
that the labels bore the words, " i Gallon Net," whereas there was a shortage?
of 4.97 per cent in each ^-gallon can. Misbranding of the article was alleged 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?
packages in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count.
On May 3, 1918, the said S. Scaduto, claimant, having consented to a decree,?
judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by?
the court that the product should be released to said claimant upon the pay??
ment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of?
$186, in conformity with section 10 of the act.
J. It. IIIGGS, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N. J. 6451-6500.]   SERVICE AND REGULATORY A2OT0UNCEMENTS.	581