07JG. Adulteration and misbranding of tomato ?ixlj>. V. S. * * * v. Le?
Roy Marvin Landrail (Baltimore Canning- Company^, Plea Of?
g-nilty. Fine, $40 and costs. (F. & D. No. 9066. I. S. Nos. 2333-p,?
2577-p.)
On October 8, 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 Le Roy Marvin?
Langrall, trading as the Baltimore Canning Co., Baltimore, Md., alleging ship??
ment by said defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on?
or about August 31, 1917, and October 9, 1917, from the State of Maryland into?
the States of Pennsylvania and Florida, respectively, of quantities of an article?
labeled in part, " Old Scout Brand Tomato Pulp * * * Packed by Balti*?
more Canning Co., Baltimore, Md.," the shipment to* Pennsylvania being adul??
terated and that to Florida being adulterated and misbranded.
Examination of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed them to be partially decomposed.
Weighings of 12 cans from the October 9, 1917, shipment showed a net weight?
from 9.0 to 10,1 ounces, average 9.4 ounces.
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.
1 Misbranding of the article in the shipment on October 9, 1917, was alleged?
for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Contents 10 Oz.," borne on the labels?
attached to the cans regarding the article, was falsely misleading [false and?
misleading] in that it represented that the contents of each of said cans weighed?
ten ounces, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to?
deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that the contents of each of?
said cans weighed ten ounces, whereas, in truth and in fact, they did not, but?
weighed a less amount. 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 package.
On October 8, 1918, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information,?
and the court imposed a fine of $40 and costs.
3, R. RIGGS, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N J. 6701-6750.]     SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	245