13412. Adulteration and misbranding of canned tuna fish. U. S. v. 99 
Cases of Tuna Fish. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,, 
and destruction.    KF. & D. No. 12552.    I. S. No. 15220-r.    S. No. E-2068.)
On April 13, 1920, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, 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 condemnation of 99 cases of tuna fish remaining in the original 
unbroken packages at Bethlehem, Pa., consigned by the Curtis Corporation, 
Long Beach, Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped from Long Beach, 
Calif., on or about January 20, 1920, and transported from the State of Cali- 
fornia into the State of Pennsylvania, and charging adulteration and misbrand- 
ing in violation of the food and drugs act. The article was labeled in part: 
(Can) "Curtis Brand * * * Calif ornia Tuna White Meat * * * Packed 
By The Curtis Corporation.   Long Beach, Cal."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that blue 
fin, yellow fin, striped tuna, and bonita had been mixed and packed with and 
substituted wholly or in part for California tuna white meat, which the article 
purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the packages inclosing the 
article bore labels containing the following statement, " Curtis Brand * * * 
California Tuna White Meat," which was false and misleading, in that the said 
statement represented that the said packages contained California tuna white 
meat, when, in fact, they did not.
On April 25, 1924, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment 
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court 
that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
HOWARD M. GORE, Secretary of Agriculture.