10059.?Adulteration   and  misbranding   of  table   oil.     IT.   S.     *     *     *     v.  24
Cans of * * * Table Oil * * *. Default decree of condem??
nation, forfeiture, and sale. (F. & D. No. 15247. I. S. No. 8486-t.?
S. No. E-3486.)
On July 26, 1921, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland,?
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 cans of table oil, remaining in the original unbroken packages at Balti??
more, Md., consigned on or about June 4, 1921, alleging that the article had been?
shipped by Gamanos & Booskos, New York, N. Y., and transported from the?
State of New York into the State of Maryland, and charging adulteration and?
misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in substance in the libel for the reason?
that corn oil and cottonseed oil had been mixed and packed therewith so as to
36	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 132,
reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been?
substituted wholly or in part for the said article. Adulteration was alleged?
for the further reason that the article had been mixed in a manner whereby?
its inferiority was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the labels of the?
cans containing the article bore certain statements, designs, and devices re??
garding the article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, as?
follows, " Finest Quality Table Oil Insuperabile * * * Termini Imerese?
Type," together with a design showing natives gathering olives from an olive?
tree and the use of the Italian language, not corrected by the statement at the?
bottom of the label in small, inconspicuous type, " Cottonseed Oil Slightly?
Flavored With Olive Oil," and the statement " One Quart," which were false?
and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was?
alleged for the further reason that the article purported to be a foreign product?
when not so; for the further reason that it was an imitation of, and was?
offered for sale under the distinctive name of, another article; and for the?
further reason that it was 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 was not correct.
On October 1, 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 relabeled and sold by the United States marshal.
G. W. PTJGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.