12093. Alleged adulteration and misbranding of olive oil. U. S. v. Joseph 
Crisafulli and Stefano Crisafulli (Crisafulli Bros.). Plea of not 
g-uilty. Tried to the court and a jury. Verdict of not guilty 
directed by the court. (F. & D. No. 16556. I. S. Nos. 5493-t, 5494-t, 
5498-t, 5499-t, 15480-t.)
On October 4, 1922, 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 
Joseph Crisafulli and Stefano Crisafulli, copartners, trading as Crisafulli 
Bros., New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the 
Food and Drugs Act, as amended, in various consignments, namely, on or 
about June 23, 24, and 25, 1921, respectively, from the State of New York into 
the State of Massachusetts, of quantities of olive oil which was alleged to have 
been misbranded, and on or about July 9, 1921, from the State of New York 
into the State of New Jersey, of a quantity of oil which was alleged to have 
been adulterated and misbranded. The olive oil was labeled in part: " Contains 
One Full Gallon * * * Pure Olive Oil * * * Crisafulli Brand * * * 
Crisafulli Bros." The product involved in the remaining consignment was 
labeled in part: " Finest Quality Table Oil La Migliore Brand Insuperabile " 
(picture of olive tree) " Corn Salad Oil Compound With Extra Fine Olive Oil " 
(the words "Corn Salad Oil Compound" were very small and almost indis- 
cernible, while the words "Olive Oil" were in large and distinct type) "* * * 
Net Contents One Gallon."
Examination by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of certain cans 
taken from each of the consignments of the products showed that the said cans 
contained less than 1 gallon of the respective products, the shortages disclosed 
ranging from 2.30 to 4.85 per cent. Analysis of the La Migliore brand table 
oil showed that it consisted chiefly of corn oil and peanut oil and contained 
little, if any, olive oil.
Adulteration of the La Migliore brand table oil was alleged in the information 
for the reason that oils other than olive oil, including peanut oil, had been 
mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect 
its quality and strength and had been substituted practically wholly for olive 
oil, which the said article purported to be. Adulteration was alleged for the 
further reason that oils other than olive oil, including peanut oil, had been 
mixed with the article so as to simulate olive oil and in a manner whereby its 
damage and inferiority to olive oil were concealed.
Misbranding of the La Migliore brand table oil was alleged in substance for 
the reason that the statements in large prominent type, to wit, " Finest Quality 
Table Oil La Migliore Brand Insuperabile * * * Extra Fine Olive Oil," and 
the statement in smaller type, to wit, " Net Contents One Gallon," together with 
the pictorial representation of an olive tree and olive branch bearing olives, borne 
on each of the cans containing the article, regarding the said article, were false- 
and misleading, in that they represented that the article was pure olive oil 
and that each of the said cans contained 1 gallon net thereof, and for the fur- 
ther reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mis- 
lead the purchaser into the belief that it was pure olive oil and that each of 
the said cans contained 1 gallon net thereof, whereas, in truth and in fact, 
it was not pure olive oil but was composed practically wholly of oils other 
than olive oil, including peanut oil, and contained an insignificant amount of, 
if any, olive oil, and each of the said cans did not contain 1 gallon net of the 
said article but did contain a less quantity.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the Orisafulli brand olive oil for 
the reason that the statement, to wit, " Contains One Full Gallon," borne on 
the cans containing the article, was false and misleading, in that the said state- 
ment represented that each of the said cans contained 1 full gallon of the 
article, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to de- 
ceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that each of the said cans con- 
tained 1 full gallon of the article, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of said 
cans did not contain 1 full gallon of the said article but did contain a less 
quantity.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to all consignments of the 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, since the stated quantity was incorrect and represented more 
than the actual contents of the packages.
On March 20, 1923, the case came on for trial before the court and a jury. 
After the submission of evidence, by direction of the court the jury returned 
a verdict of not guilty.
HOWARD M. GORE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.