10513. Adulteration and Misbranding of canned tomatoes. TJ. S. * * * 
v. 54 Cases of Canned * * * Tomatoes. Default decree order- 
ing- destruction of the product. (F. & D. No. 14438. I. S. No. 8461-t. 
S. No. B-3118.)
On February 11, 1921, the Un'.ted States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Virginia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis- 
trict Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and 
condemnation of 54 cases of canned tomatoes, remaining in the original un- 
broken packages at Orange, Va., alleging that the article had been shipped by 
W. E. Robinson & Co., Baltimore, Md., on or about May 17, 1920, and trans- 
ported from the State of Maryland into the State of Virginia, and charging 
adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as 
amended. The article was labeled in part: " Plum Point Brand Tomatoes 
*    *    *    pium point Canning Co., Plum Point, Md."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that a cer- 
tain substance, to wit, tomato pulp, had been mixed and packed therewith so 
as to 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 was mixed in a manner whereby damage 
and inferiority were concealed.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the cans contain- 
ing the article bore a certain statement and a design or device regarding the 
article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, to wit, " Plum 
Point Brand Tomatoes" (design showing red, ripe tomato) "Contents 2 
Lbs.," which were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser 
into believing that the article consisted wholly and entirely of tomatoes, and 
that no other substance such as tomato pulp had been mixed therewith. Mis- 
branding was alleged in substance for the further reason that the article was 
an imitation of, and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of, another 
article, and for the further reason that the article was food in package form, 
and the quantity of the contents thereof was not plainly, conspicuously, and 
correctly marked on the outside of the said packages.
On October 12, 1921, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment 
?of the court was entered ordering that the product be destroyed by the United 
States marshal.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.