1.1685. Misbranding? of olive oil unci adulteration and misbranding- of?
salad oil. U. S. v. Nicholas lyriotakis and Michael Liyriotateis?
(Xyriotakis Bros.). Plea of gnilty. Fine, S200. (F & D. No. 16847.?
I. S. Nos. 6624-t, 6690-t, 6691-t.)
On February 2, 1923, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
Nicholas Lyriotakis and Michael Lyriotakis, copartners, trading as Lyriotakis?
Bros., New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the?
Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about April 28, 1921, from the State of?
New York into the State of New Jersey, of a quantity of olive oil which was?
misbranded, and on or about May 20, 1921, from the State of New York into?
the State of Connecticut, of quantities of salad oil which was adulterated and?
misbranded. The articles were labeled in part, respectively: (Cans) "Net?
Contents i Gallon Imported Pure Olive Oil Olio d'Oliva Puro Vittoria Brand?
* * * Lyriotakis Bros. Importers & Packers New York;" "II Famoso Olio?
per Insalata * * * Medaglie Universali Cotton Salad Oil i Gallon Net"?
(or "1 Gallon Net").
Examination by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of 10 cans of?
the olive oil showed an average volume of 0.986 quart. Analysis of a sample of?
the salad oil by said bureau showed that it consisted chiefly of cottonseed oil?
with little or no olive oil present; examination of 8 gallon cans and 7 half-?
gallon cans of the salad oil showed an average volume Of 0.971 gallon and 0.99?
half-gallon, respectively.
Misbranding of the olive oil was alleged in the information for the reason that?
the statement, to wit, " Net Contents \ Gallon," borne on the cans containing the?
article, regarding the said article, was false and misleading in that it repre??
sented that each of the said cans contained one-quarter gallon net of the said a r-?
ticle, and for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so?
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that each of the said?
cans contained one-quarter gallon net of the article, whereas, in truth and in?
fact, each of said cans did not contain one-quarter gallon net of the said article?
but did contain a less amount.
Adulteration of the salad oil was alleged for the reason that a substance, to?
wit, cottonseed oil, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to lower and?
reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been substi??
tuted in part for olive oil, which the said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the said salad oil for the reason that?
the statement, to wit, " Olio per Insalata," borne in prominent type on the cans?
containing the article, and the statements to wit, " \ Gallon Net" or " 1 Gallon?
Net," as the case might be, together with the designs and devices of olive leaves?
and Italian medals, borne on the said cans, not corrected by the statement in in??
conspicuous type, " Cotton Salad Oil," borne on the said cans, were false and?
misleading in that they represented that the article was olive oil, that it was a?
foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced in the kingdom of Italy, and that?
each of the said cans contained one-half gallon or one gallon net of the ar??
ticle, as the case might be, and for the further reason that the article was?
labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief?
that it was olive oil, that it was a foreign product, to wit, an olive oil produced?
in the kingdom of Italy, and that each of the said cans contained one-half gallon
N.J. 11651-11700.]    SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.       379
or one gallon net of the said article, as the case might be, whereas, in truth and?
in fact, it was not olive oil but was a mixture composed in part of cottonseed?
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?
one-half gallon net or one gallon net of the article, as the case might be, but?
did contain a less amount. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that?
the article was a mixture composed in part of cottonseed oil, prepared in imi??
tation of olive oil, and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name?
of another article, to wit, " Olio per Insalata," that is to say, olive oil. Mis??
branding was alleged for the further reason that the statements, designs, and?
devices borne on the cans containing the article purported it to be a foreign?
product when not so.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to both products for the 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 package.
On February 26, 1923, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the informa??
tion, and the court imposed a fine of $200.
HOWARD M. GOSE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.