7705. Adulteration and misbranding: of olive oil. TJ. S. * * * v. 316 Gal- 
lons of a Product Purporting- to be Olive Oil. Consent decree of 
condemnation and forfeiture.    Product released under bond.     (F. &
D. No. 9531.    I. S. No. 12533-r.     S. No. E-1181.)
On December 10, 1918, the United States attorney for the District of Massa- 
chusetts, 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 216 gallons of a product purporting to be olive oil, consigned 
on or about August 3, 1918, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages 
at Springfield, Mass., alleging that the article had been shipped by Kazis & 
Macris, New York, N. Y., and transported from the State of New York into 
the State of Massachusetts, and charging adulteration and misbranding In viola- 
tion of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in substance in the libel for the reason 
that cottonseed oil had been mixed and packed with the article so as to reduce, 
lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance in that the packages and 
labels thereof bore a statement which was false and misleading, that is to say, 
the statement that it was Greek olive oil compounded with cottonseed oil, when 
said product was not Greek olive oil, but consisted almost wholly of cottonseed 
oil, and that by manner of display it led the purchaser to believe that said 
product was a foreign product, when, in truth and in fact, it was a product 
of domestic manufacture. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that 
said article was food in package form, and the quantity of the contents was not 
plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package in terras of 
weight, measure, or numerical count.
On January 27, 1920, Peter Frentzos, Springfield, Mass., claimant, having 
consented to a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, 
and it was ordered by- the court that the product be released to said claimant 
upon the payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond 
in a sum approved by the court, in conformity with section 10 of the act.
B. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.