7873. Adulteration and misbranding of canned tuna fish. U. S. * * * v. 
125 Cases of a Product Purporting to be Canned Tuna Fisli. Con- 
sent decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product released 
under bond. (E\ & D. Nos. 12148, 12149. I. S. No. 14158-r. S. No. 
B-1974.)
On February 16, 1920, 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 of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and 
condemnation of 125 cases of a product purporting to be canned tuna fish, 
remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at New York, N. Y., 
alleging that the article had been shipped on or about September 23, 1919, by the 
White Star Canning Co.. Bast San Pedro, Calif., and transported from the State 
of California into the State of New York, and charging adulteration and mis- 
branding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in 
part, "Radio Brand Blue Fin Tuna * * * White Meat Tuna * * * 
Selected White Meat of California Tuna."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that 
striped tuna (Gymnosarcla pelamis) had been mixed and packed with, and 
substituted in part for, California tuna fish.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the following 
statements, to wit, " Blue Fin White Meat Tuna * * *," " Selected White 
Meat of California Tuna * * *," and "Blue Fin Tuna," were false and 
misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding of the article 
was alleged for the further reason that it was an imitation of, and was offered 
for sale under the distinctive name of, another article.
On February 26, 1920, the White Star Canning Co., claimant, having filed a 
stipulation admitting the truth of the allegations of the libel and consenting 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 the 
sum of $1,000, in conformity with Section 10 of the act, conditioned in part that 
the product be relabeled under the supervision of this department.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.