31290. Adulteration and misbranding of tuna fish. V. S. v. 176 Cases of?
Tuna Fish. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and sale?
or destruction.     (P. & D. No. 12230.    I. S. No. 8763-r.     S. No. Cr1807.)
On March 6, 1920, the United States attorney for the Western District of?
Oklahoma, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district a libel praying seizure?
and condemnation of 176 cases of tuna fish, remaining unsold in the original?
unbroken packages at Clinton, Okla., alleging that the article had been shipped?
by the Kingsbury-Haynes Brokerage Co., Dallas, Tex., on or about December?
22, 1919, and transported from the State of Texas into the State of Oklahoma,?
and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs?
Act. A portion of the article was labeled in part: (Case) "48 Halves Regent?
Brand Tuna Fish Packed at San Pedro, California by Nielsen & Kittle Canning?
Co." The remainder of the said article was labeled in part: (Case) "48 Halves?
* * * Tuna." The cans within the case were labeled in part: " First Pick?
Brand Tuna Fish Contents 7 Oz."
Adulteration of the article was alleged for the reason that fish other than?
tuna fish had been substituted wholly or in part for the said article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the labels on the cans contain??
ing the article bore the statement, " First Pick Brand Tuna," which was false?
and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was?
alleged for the further reason that the article was an imitation of and offered?
for sale under the deceptive [distinctive] name of another article.
On January 30, 1923, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg??
ment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the?
court that the product be sold by the United States marshal. It was provided?
in the decree that the purchaser execute a bond in the sum of $1,000, in con??
formity with section 10 of the act, conditioned that the product be not sold?
thereafter until it had been relabeled under the supervision of this department.?
It was further ordered in the decree that the product be destroyed by the?
marshal if there were no bids offered at the sale and that the intervenor, the?
Nielsen & Kittle Canning Co., Ltd., East San Pedro, Calif., pay the costs of?
the proceedings.