11475.?Adulteration   and   misbranding   of   corn   oil.     V.   S.   v.   3   Cases   of
Corn Oil. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and de??
struction or sale. (F. & D. No.' 16339. I. S. Nos. 15560-t, 15572-t.?
S. No. E-3877.)
On May 24, 1922, the United States attorney for the District of Connecticut,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court?
of the United States for said district a libel praying the seizure and condemna??
tion of 3 cases of corn oil, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages?
at Stamford, Conn., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Salvati?
Olive Oil Co., New York, N. Y., on or about March 4, 1922, and transported?
from the State of New York into the State of Connecticut, and charging adul??
teration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended.?
The article was labeled in part: " Marzo Brand Pure Corn Oil * * * Pro-?
dotto Speciale Usabile Egualmente Come Olio D'Oliva Net Contents 1 Gallon."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that oil?
other than olive oil, which the article purported to be, had been mixed and?
packed therewith so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality?
and strength and had been substituted wholly or in part for the said article.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance for the reason that the?
labels upon the cases containing the said article bore the following state??
ments, " Olio D'Oliva * * * Net Contents 1 Gallon," which statements,?
together with the use of the Italian language, were false and misleading and?
deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was alleged in substance for?
the further reason that the article was an imitation of and offered for sale?
under the distinctive name of another article, for the further reason that it?
purported to be a foreign product when, in truth and in fact, it was a product?
of domestic manufacture, and for the further reason that it was food in package?
form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously?
marked on the outside of the package.
On September 18, 1922, 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 destroyed by the United States marshal or sold if a?
sale could be speedily effected.
HOWARD M. GORE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.