11316. Adulteration, and misbranding- of cottonseed oil and misbranding?
of olive oil. U. S. v. John Courumalis and John Pappaianoa (CoDtn-?
malis & Co.).     Picas of guilty.    Fine, $100.     (F. & D. No. 16562.    I. S. Nos.
6227-t, 6713-t, 6935-t, 6936-t, 7006-t, 7007-t, 7008-t.)
At the February, 1923, term of the United States District Court within and?
for the Southern District of New York, the United States attorney for said?
district, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the dis??
trict court aforesaid an information against John Courumalis and John Pap-?
paianou, copartners, trading as Courumalis & Co., Nqw York, N. Y., alleging?
shipment by said defendants, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as?
amended, between the dates of May 13 and June 15, 1921, from the State of New?
York in various consignments, in part into the State of New Jersey and in part?
into the State of Connecticut, of quantities of cottonseed oil which was adul??
terated and misbranded, and of quantities of olive oil which was misbranded.?
The cottonseed oil was labeled in part: " La Bella Fiume Brand Prodotto?
Garantito Olio Per Insalata Sopraffino * * * Net Contents 1 Gallon" (or?
" One Quart "). The olive oil was labeled in part: " Extra Sublime Pure Olive?
Oil   *    *    *   Valore Brand    *    *    *   Contents 1 Gallon" (or " One Quart").
Analysis of a sample of the La Bella Fiume brand oil by the Bureau of?
Chemistry of this department showed that it consisted of cottonseed oil. Exam??
ination by said bureau of samples from the various-sized cans of both of the?
respective products showed that the said cans contained less of the said products?
than declared on the labels.
Adulteration of the La Bella Fiume brand oil was alleged in the information?
for the reason that a substance, to wit, cottonseed oil, had been substituted in?
whole or in part for, to wit, olive oil, which the said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements in large type,?
to wit, " La Bella Fiume * * * Prodotto Garantito Olio Per Insalata Sop??
raffino * * * Valore Olive Oil Co.," not corrected by the statement in?
smaller type, " Vegetable Oils Slightly Flavored With Pure Olive Oil," the?
statements, to wit, "Net Contents 1 Gallon" or "Net Contents One Quart,"?
as the case might be, together with the design and device of a picture of a?
European town, to wit, Fiume, borne on the cans containing the said La Bella?
Fiume brand oil, and the statements, to wit, " Contents 1 Gallon " or " Contents?
One Quart," as the case might be, borne on the cans containing the said olive?
oil, were false and misleading in that the said statements represented that the?
said La Bella Fiume brand oil was, to wit, olive oil, that it was a foreign?
product, to wit, an olive oil produced in Europe, and that each of the cans con??
taining the respective articles contained 1 gallon or 1 quart thereof, as the?
case might be, and for the further reason that the articles were labeled as?
aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that the?
said La Bella Fiume brand oil was olive oil, that it was a foreign product, to?
wit, an olive oil produced in Europe, and that each of the said cans containing?
the respective articles contained 1 gallon or 1 quart thereof, as the case might?
be, whereas, in truth and in fact, the said La Bella Fiume oil was not, to wit,?
olive oil, but was a product which consisted in whole or in very large part of?
cottonseed oil, it was not a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced in?
Europe but was a domestic product, to wit, an oil produced in the United?
States of America, and each of the cans containing the respective articles did?
not contain 1 gallon or 1 quart of the said articles, as the case might be, but?
did contain a less amount.   Misbranding was alleged with respect to the said
N. J. 11301-11350.]    SEEVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.       159
La Bella Fiume brand oil for the further reason that the statements, design, and?
device borne on the said cans purported said article to be a foreign product?
when not so. Misbranding was alleged with respect to both products for the?
further reason that they were food in package form, and the quantity of the?
contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the?
packages.
On February 28, 1923, the defendants, entered pleas of guilty to the informa??
tion, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.