6738.   Adulteration and misbranding; of olive oil.     V.  S.    *    *    *    v.  12 One-?
gallon Cans and 24 Half-gallon Cans of Olive Oil (so-called).    Con??
sent decree of condemnation and forfeiture.    Product ordered re??
leased  on l>ond.     (F.  &  D.  No.  0095.     I.   S.  Nos.   6568-p,  6569-p.     S   No?
E-1056.)
On June 25, 1918, the United States attorney for the District of Connecticut,?
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 12 one-gallon cans and 24 half-gallon cans of olive oil, remaining?
unsold in the original unbroken packages at South Norwalk, Conn., alleging?
that the article had been shipped on or about May 30, 1918, by Arony &?
Papitsas, 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, as amended.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that?
cottonseed oil had been mixed and packed therewith 'so as to reduce, lower,?
and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been substituted?
practically entirely for the article purporting to be olive oil.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the labels of the?
cans bore certain statements regarding the article which were false and mis??
leading, that is to say, the statements, to wit, "Olive Oil" (in large type),?
and "Compounded with cottonseed oil" (in inconspicuous type), and "Cotton??
seed and" (in inconspicuous type), and "Olive Oil" (in large type), which?
statements were intended to be of such a character as to induce the pur??
chaser to believe that the product was olive oil,, when, in truth and in fact,?
it was not; and for the further reason that it was an imitation of, and was?
offered for sale under the distinctive name of, another article, to wit, olive?
oil: and for the further reason that the labels on the half-gallon cans bore?
the words " Full 4 gallon," whereas there was a shortage of 2.7 per cent in?
each purported one-half gallon; and for the further reason that it was food in?
package form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and con??
spicuously marked on the outside of the package in terms of weight, measure,?
or mimerical count.
On July 15, 1918, the said Arony & Papitsas, New York, N. Y., claimants,?
having consented to a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was?
entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product should be delivered?
to said claimants upon the payment of the costs of the proceedings and the?
execution of a bond in the sum of $35, in conformity with section 10 of the act.
J. R. RIGGS, Acting Secretary of Agriculture,