0109.  Adulteration and Misbranding of catsup.    V. S.     *     *     *     v. 24 Cases
*     *     *     of lioyal Kitchen Brand Tomato  Catsup.     Default  decree 
of   condemnation,   forfeiture,  and   destruction.      (F.   &  D.   No.   14142.
I. S. No. 7842-t.    S. No. E-3039.)
On January 5, 1921, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, 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 24 cases, more or less, of Royal Kitchen Brand tomato catsup, 
consigned by Ross Rizzo, Albion, N. Y., remaining in the original unbroken pack- 
ages at Coatesville, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about 
November 13, 1920, and transported from the State of New York into the State 
of Pennsylvania, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the 
Food and Drugs Act, as amended. The article was labeled in part: (Bottle) 
" Royal Kitchen Brand Tomato Catsup * * * Made From Selected Toma- 
toes * * * Contents 10 Oz. * * * Packed By Thomas Page, Albion, N. Y., 
U. S. A."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that it con- 
sisted in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed, and putrid vegetable sub- 
stance.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the retail packages 
in which, the product was inclosed contained labels which bore the following
statements, regarding said article and the ingredients and substances contained 
therein, which were false and misleading in that said statements indicated to 
the purchaser that the packages contained, when in fact they did not contain, 
" Royal Kitchen Brand Tomato Catsup * * * Made From Selected Toma- 
toes * * * Contents 10 Oz." Misbranding was alleged for the further reason 
that the article was food in package form, and the quantity of the contents 
was not plainly and .conspicuously marked on the outside of the package, since 
the quantity stated wasnot correct. .
On January 25, 1921, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment 
of condemnation and forfeiture, was entered, and it was ordered by the court 
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.