11347.?Adulteration and misbranding?of canned tomatoes. U. S. v. 1,000?
Cases, et al., of Canned Tomatoes.?Consent decrees entered providing?
for release of product under bond.?(P. & D. Nos. 15488, 15489, 15490, 15491,?
15521.    I. S. Nos. 9310-t, 9313-t, 9337-t.?S. Nos. E-3612, E-3627.)
On October 22 and November 1, 1921, respectively, the United States attorney?
for the Southern District of Georgia, acting upon reports by the Secretary of?
Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district?
libels praying the seizure and condemnation of 1,800 cases of canned tomatoes,?
remaining unsold in the original packages at Savannah, Ga., alleging that the?
article had been shipped by D. B. Foote & Co., Inc., Baltimore, Md., Septem??
ber 9, 1921, and transported from the State of ?, Maryland into the State of?
Georgia, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food?
and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: " ' Fox' * * * Brand "?
(or "Compass Brand") "Tomatoes * * * Packed by D. E. Foote & Co.?
Inc. Baltimore, Md."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libels for the reason that?
added purge, pulp and juice from skins and cores, and water had been mixed?
and packed with and substituted for the said article, to wit, tomatoes. Adul??
teration was alleged for the further reason that the article was mixed and?
packed in a manner whereby damage and inferiority were concealed.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the statements,?
" ' Fox ' * * * Brand Tomatoes " or " Compass Brand Tomatoes," as the case?
might be, together with the design of a red tomato, appearing on the said labels,?
were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser for the?
reason that the contents of the said cans was not made up solely of the arti??
cle represented by said label, but the said article had mixed therewith pur6e,?
pulp and the juice from skins and cores of tomatoes, and water. Misbranding?
was alleged for the further reason that the article was an imitation of and?
offered for sale under the distinctive name of an article other than that con??
tained in the said cans, that is, the contents of the said cans was offered?
for sale as tomatoes and not as tomatoes mixed with other substances.
On December 10, 1921, D. E. Foote & Co., Inc., Baltimore, Md., claimant,?
having filed an answer admitting the allegations of the libel and praying the?
release of the product to be relabeled under the supervision of this department,?
judgments of the court were entered ordering that the said product be released?
to the claimant upon the execution of bonds in the aggregate sum of $1,285.30,?
in conformity with section 10 of the act.
C. W. PUGSLET, Acting Secretary of Agriculture