11025. Misbranding of olive oil. U. S. v. 29 Half-gallon Cans and 47 Gal??
lon Cans of Olive Oil. Consent decree of condemnation and for??
feiture.     Product   released  nnder  bond.     (F.  &  D.   No.   15641.    I.   S.
Nos.  13885-t,  13886-t.    S. No.   W-3 034.)
On November 29, 1921, the United States attorney for the District of Colo??
rado, 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 condem??
nation of 29 half-gallon cans and 47 gallon cans of olive oil, remaining un??
sold in the original unbroken packages at Denver, Colo., consigned by the?
Old Monk Olive Oil Co., Chicago, 111., alleging that the article had been shipped?
from Chicago, 111., on or about November 12, 1921, and transported from the?
State of Illinois into the State of Colorado, and charging misbranding in vio??
lation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. The article was labeled in part:?
(Cans) " France Old Monk Olive Oil Virgin * * * From Nice, France Old?
Monk Olive Oil Co. New York?Chicago?Nice Net Contents One Half?
Gallon " (or " One Gallon ").
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that the?
statement, to wit, " Net Contents One Half Gallon," appearing on each of the?
said half-gallon cans, and the statement, to wit, " Net Contents One Gallon,"?
appearing on each of the said gallon cans, were false and misleading and de??
ceived and misled the purchaser in that the net contents of the said half-gallon?
cans was less than one-half gallon and the net contents of each of the said?
gallon cans was less than one gallon. Misbranding was alleged for the fur??
ther 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?
packages.
On January 10, 1922, the Old Monk Olive Oil Co.. Chicago, 111., claimant, hav??
ing admitted the allegations of the libel and consented to the entry of a decree,?
judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by?
the court that the product be released to the said claimant upon payment of the?
costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of $250, in?
conformity with section 10 of the act.
C. F. MABVIN, Aotmg Secretary of Agriculture.