li:522.  Adulteration  and  misbranding-   of  olive  oil.     U.   S.  v.   John   Conra-?
raalis and John Pappaianou (Courumalis & Co.).     Pleas of guilty.     Fine,
$200.     (P. & D. No. 16933.     I.  S. No. 15561-t.)
At the February, 1923, term of the United States District Court within and?
for the Southern District of Ne.w 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., New York, N. Y., alleging ship??
ment by said defendants, in violation of the Pood and Drugs Act, as amended,?
on or about March 15, 1922, from the State of New York into the State of?
Connecticut, of a quantity of alleged olive oil which was adulterated and mis-?
branded. The article was labeled in part: "La Bella Fiume Brand Prodotto?
Garantito Olio Per Insalata Sopraffino * * * Packed By Valore Olive Oil?
Co.    New York    Net Contents One Quart."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it consisted chiefly, if not entirely, of oils other than?
olive oil, and that the said cans contained less than 1 quart of the said article.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that an oil or oils other than olive oil had been mixed and packed therewith?
so as to lower, reduce, and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had?
been substituted in part for, to wit, olive oil, which the said article purported?
to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, " La Bella?
Fiume Brand Prodotto Garantito Olio Per Insalata Sopraffino " and " Net Con??
tents One Quart," not corrected by the statement in small type, " Vegetable Oils?
Slightly Flavored With Pure Olive Oil," together with the design and device of?
Fiume, a town in Europe, borne on the cans containing the article, regarding?
the said article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were?
false and misleading in that they represented that the said article was, to wit,?
olive oil, that it w'as a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced in Europe,?
and that each of the said cans contained 1 quart net of the article, and for the?
further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead?
the purchaser into the belief that it was, to wit, olive oil, that it was a foreign?
product, and that each of said cans contained 1 quart net of the said article,?
whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not, to wit, olive oil, but was a mixture?
composed in large part of an oil or oils other than olive oil, it was not a foreign?
product but was a domestic product, to wit; an article produced in the United?
States of America, and each of said cans did not contain 1 quart net of the?
said article but did contain a less amount. Misbranding was alleged for the?
further 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?
package.
On February 28, 1923, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the informa??
tion, and the court imposed a fine of $200.
C. W. PUGSXEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
162	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 157,