681C. Adulteration and misbranding: of olive oil compounded with cotton??
seed oil. U. S. * * * v. 540 Gallons of Alleged Olive Oil Com??
pounded 'with. Cottonseed Oil. Consent decree of condemnation?
and   forfeiture.     Product   ordered   released   on  bond.     (F.   &  D.   No.
9288.    I. S. No. 13721-r.    S. No. E-1104.)
On September 5, 1918, the United States attorney for the District of Con??
necticut, 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?
condemnation of 540 gallons of alleged olive oil compounded with cottonseed?
oil, remaining unsold in the original unbroken pa.ckages at New Haven, Conn.,?
alleging that the article had been shipped on or about June 12, July 12, and?
July 25, 1918, by Angiolillo Bros., New York, N. Y., and transported from the?
State of New York into the State of Connecticut, and charging adulteration and
N. J. 6801-6850]      SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	317
misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. The article?
was labeled in part, " Olio Sopraffino Qualita Superiore Olio Finissimo Cotton?
Seed and Olive Oil a Compound Tripolitania " (pictures of coat of arms, medals,?
and crowns).
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that corn?
oil had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce and lower and in??
juriously affect its quality and strength, and had been substituted in whole or?
in part for the product purporting to be olive oil compounded with cottonseed?
oil.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the labels on the?
cans bore statements regarding the article which were false and misleading, that?
is to say said labels bore certain designs and statements intended to be of such?
a character as to induce the purchaser to believe that the product was Italian?
olive oil, when, in truth and in fact, it was not; and for the further reason?
that it purported to be of foreign origin, when, in truth and in fact, it was of?
domestic origin. Misbranding of the article was alleged for the further reason?
that it was food in package form, and the contents were not stated plainly?
and correctly on the outside of the package in terms of weight or measure, there?
being a shortage in each purported gallon, 'half gallon, and quart of approxi??
mately 4.87 per cent.
On October 14, 1918, the said Angiolillo Bros., 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 $1,250, in conformity with section 10 of the act.
C. F. MABVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.