13122.   Misbranding-   of   oil.     U.   S.   v.   Sam   Brucle   (Inc.).     Plea   of   guilty. 
Fine, $20.     (F. & D. No. 18738.    I. S. Nos. 15767-v, 15769-v.)
On November 18, 1924, 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 
Sam Bruck (Inc.), a corporation, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said 
?company, in violation of the food and drugs act, on or about October 6, 1923, 
from the State of New York into the State of Connecticut, of quantities of oil 
which was misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled in part: (Can) 
"" Cuoco's Brand Oil Refined Vegetable Oil flavored slightly with pure olive oil 
A Compound 0.98 Of Half Gallon Or 3% Lbs. Net." The remainder of the 
article was labeled in part: (Can) "San Pietro Brand Extra Quality Oil 
For Salads * * * Refined Vegetable Oil flavored slightly with pure olive 
oil.   A Compound 0.98 Of One GaUon Or 7% Lbs. Net."
Examination of a sample from each of the two lots of the article by the 
Bureau of Chemistry of this department showed no flavor of olive oil present 
in either sample. Examination of 3 cans of the Cuoco's brand and 15 cans 
of the San Pietro brand by said bureau showed an average volume of 0.959 
of % gallon and 0.974 of 1 gallon, respectively.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for v the reason 
that the statement, to wit, "flavored slightly with pure olive oil," borne on 
the cans containing the said article, and the statements, to wit, "0.98 Of 
Half Gallon Or 3% Lbs. Net," borne on the cans containing a portion of the 
article, and the statement " 0.98 Of One Gallon Or 7V2 Lbs. Net," borne on the 
cans containing the remainder, were false and misleading, in that they rep- 
resented that the article was flavored slightly with pure olive oil and that a 
portion of the cans contained 0.98 of a half gallon or 3% pounds thereof, 
and that the remainder of the said cans contained 0.98 of a gallon or 7% 
pounds thereof, 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 flavored 
slightly with pure olive oil and that the cans contained the respective amounts 
declared thereon as above set forth, whereas it was not flavored slightly with 
pure olive oil but was a product composed in whole or in part of cottonseed 
oil and containing no olive oil, and the said cans did not contain the amounts 
declared on the respective labels but did contain less amounts.    Misbranding
was alleged for the further reason that the article was food in package form 
and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked 
on the outside of the packages.
On February 9, 1925, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $20.
R. W. DTJNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.