&643. Adulteration and misbranding of tomato pulp. U. S. * * * v. Oliver?
P. Roberts, James H. Roberts, William H. Roberts, M. Raymond?
Roberts, and James O. Langrall (Roberts Bros.). Pleas of guilty as?
to counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, S, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, IS, 20, and 21, charging?
adulteration and misbranding-. Counts 3, 6, 10, T3, 16, 10, and 22,?
charging misbraudiug' in violation of the net "weight amendment,?
nolle pressed. Fine, $375 unA costs. (B\ & D. No. 8808. I. Sri. Nos.?
2327-p, 2332-p, 2334-p, 2373-p, 2354^p, 2949-p, 2399-p.)
On June 28, 1918, the United States attorney for "the District of Maryland,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court?
of the United States for said district an information against Oliver P. Roberts,?
James H. Roberts, William H. Roberts, M. Raymond Roberts, and James O.?
Langrall, copartners, trading as Roberts Bros., Baltimore, Md., alleging ship??
ment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended,?
on or about September 6, 1917, September 11, 1917 (two shipments>', October?
9, 1917, November 6, 1917 (two shipments), and November 22, 1917 (two ship??
ments), from the State of Maryland into the State of Pennsylvania, of quan??
tities of an article labeled in part, " Big R Brand Tomato Pulp, Contents?
Weigh it) oz.,'' which was adulterated and misbranded.
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed the pulp to have been made from partially decayed tomatoes?
and the contents to be less than 10 ounces except in one shipment of Sep??
tember 11.
Adulteration of the article in each shipment was alleged in the information?
for the reason that it consisted in whole or in part of a filthy, putrid, and de??
composed vegetable substance.
Misbranding of the article in each shipment except in one of the shipments?
on September 11, 1917, was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit,?
" Contents Weigh 10 oz.," borne on the labels attached to the cans containing?
the article, regarding it, was false and misleading, in that it represented that?
the contents of said cans weighed 10 ounces each, whereas, in truth and in fact,?
it did not, but weighed a less amount.
Misbranding of the article in each shipment except in one of the shipments?
on September 11, 1917, was alleged for the further reason that it was food in?
package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicu??
ously marked on the outside of the package.
On June 28, 1918, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to counts 1, 2, 4, 5.?
7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 of the information, charging adulteration?
and misbranding, as to short weight, and the court imposed a fine of $375 and?
costs. Counts 3, 6, 10, 13, 16, 19, and 22, charging misbranding under the net?
weight amendment, were nolle prossed.
C. F. MAEVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
168	
BUKEAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 63.