12361. Adulteration and misbranding of compound oil and olive oil. U. ?. 
v. Joseph Flione, Pantell Tnemo, and Louis Berrish (Flione- 
Themo   ?fc   Co.).     Plea   of  nolo   contendere   by   Flione.     Fine,   825.
(F. & D. No. 17786.    I. S. Nos. 1690-v, 1691-v, 1693-v, 1694-v.)
On November 12, 1923, the United States attorney for the District of Mas- 
sachusetts, 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 Flione, Pantell Themo, and Louis Berrish, copartners, trading as Flione- 
Themo & Co., Boston, Mass., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation 
of the food and drugs act as amended, in various consignments, namely, on or 
about January 13 and 25, 1923, respectively, from the State of Massachusetts 
into the State of New Hampshire, of quantities of compound oil, a portion of 
which was misbranded, and the remainder of which was adulterated and mis- 
branded, and of a quantity of olive oil which was adulterated and misbranded. 
The compound oil was labeled in part: (Can) "Net Contents One Quart" (or 
"Net Contents Half Gallon") "Adriatic Brand Superior Quality   *    *    *   Oil
A Compound Of Cotton Seed Oil Flavored With High Grade Olive Oil." The 
olive oil was labeled in part: (Can) "Net Contents One Quart San Marino 
Brand   *    *    *   Pure Olive Oil."
Analysis of a sample of the alleged olive oil by the Bureau of Chemistry of 
this department showed that it contained approximately 60 per cent of cotton- 
seed oil. Analysis of the product contained in the half-gallon cans of com- 
pound oil showed that it contained a small amount of olive oil, if any. Exam- 
ination of the products involved in all the consignments showed that the cans 
contained less than the amounts declared on the respective labels.
Adulteration of the alleged olive oil was alleged in the information foe 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 substituted in part for pure olive oil, which the said 
article purported to be. Adulteration of the portion of the compound oil con- 
tained in the half-gallon cans was alleged for the reason that a product which 
contained no olive oil had been substituted for a product flavored with olive oil, 
which the article purported to be.
Misbranding of the olive oil was alleged for the reason that the statement, 
to wit, " Pure Olive Oil," borne on the cans containing the article, was false and 
misleading in that it represented that the said article was pure olive oil, 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 pure olive oil, whereas, in 
truth and in fact, it was not, but was a mixture composed in part of cottonseed 
oil. Misbranding of the olive oil was alleged for the further reason that it was 
& product composed in part of cottonseed oil prepared in -imitation of olive oil 
.and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of another article, 
to wit, olive oil.
Misbranding of the portion of the compound oil contained in the half-gallon 
cans was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Flavored With 
High Grade Olive Oil," borne on the cans containing the article, was false 
and misleading in that it represented that the said article was flavored with 
high-grade olive" oil, and for the further reason that it was labeled as afore- 
said so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was 
flavored with high-grade olive oil, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not 
flavored with high-grade olive oil, in that it contained no olive oil.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the products involved in all the1 con- 
signments for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Net Contents One Quart," 
borne on the cans containing the olive oil and a portion of the compound oil, 
and the statement, " Net Contents Half Gallon," borne on the cans containing 
a portion of the compound oil, were false and misleading in that the said 
statements represented that each of the said cans contained 1 quart or one- 
half gallon of the respective articles, as the case might be, and for the further 
reason that the articles were labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mis- 
lead the purchaser into the belief that each of the said cans contained 1 quart 
or one-half gallon of the respective articles, as the case might be, whereas, 
in truth and in fact, each of the said cans did not contain the amount declared 
on the label but did contain a less amount.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the products involved in all the 
consignments 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 package.
On December 18, 1923, defendant Joseph Flione entered a plea of nolo con- 
tendere to the information, and the court imposed a fine of $25. The informa- 
tion was placed on file with respect to the defendants Pantell Thenio and l^ouis 
Berrish.
HOWAED M. GORE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.