7809, Atlultei'ation sxis.il misbranding' of canned tomatoes. U. S. * * * v. 
05 Cuses of 4niierson Brand Tomatoes, U. S. * * * v. 400 Cases of 
Anderson Brand Tomatoes. Consent decrees of condemnition and 
forfeiture. Goods released on bond. (F. & D. Nos 11814, 11815, 11816, 
11S17, 11818.     I. S. Nos. 14016-r, 14017-r.     S. Nos. E-1879, E-1880.)
On December 16, 1919, the United States attorney for the Southern District 
of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court oC the United States for said district libels for the seizure and 
condemnation of 65 cases and 400 cases of Anderson Brand Tomatoes, re- 
maining unsold in the original unbroken packages at New York, N. Y., alleging 
that the article had been shipped on or about September 12, 1919, and on or 
about September 8, 1919, by the Manteca Canning Co., Manteca, Calif., and 
transported from the State of California into the State of New York, and 
charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs 
Act. The article v/as labeled in part, "Anderson Brand Tomatoes Standard 
Quality * * * Anderson Quality Tomatoes Distributed by Chas. A. Anderson 
& Go. New York San Francisco Net Contents 1 lb. 12 oz." (pictorial design 
of ripe tomato).
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libels in that tomato pulp had 
been mixed and packed wilh the article so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously 
affect its quality and strength, and tomato pulp had been substituted in part for 
the article.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in that the statements and design, on 
the label on the can containing the article, as set forth above, wore false and 
misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser into the belief that the 
article consisted wholly of canned tomatoes, whereas it was a product to which 
tomato pulp had been added. Further misbranding was alleged in that it was 
an imitation of, and offered for sale under the distinctive name of, another 
article.
On January 27, 1920, Chas. A. Anderson & Co., claimant, having consented to 
decrees, judgments of condemnation and foifeiture were entered, and it was 
ordered by the court that the product be delivered to the said claimant upon 
the payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond, in con- 
formity with section 10 of the aci.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.