13918. Misbranding   of  olive   oil.     U.   S.   v.  24  One-Gallon   Cans,  et  al.,   of
Olive Oil. Decrees of condemnation and forfeiture. Product re- 
leased under bond. (F. & D. No. 20Ill, 20178. I. S. Nos. 24522-v. 
24523-v, 24966-v, 24967-v.    S. Nos. E-5313, E-5330.) 
,iy;.: 
On May 25 and June 10, 1925, respectively, the United States attorney for 
the District of Connecticut, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district libels 
praying the seizure and condemnation of 72 gallon cans, 48 half-gallon cans, 
and 44 quart cans of olive oil, remaining in the original unbroken packages at 
Bridgeport, Conn., alleging that the article had been shipped by A. Gash,; New 
York, N. Y., in part on or about March 30, 1925, and in part on or about May 
19, 1925, and transported from the State of New York into the State of Con- 
necticut, and charging misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act as 
amended. The article was labeled in part: (Can) "Italian Product Virgin 
Olive Oil Agash Brand Italy Net Contents One Full Gallon" (or "Net Con- 
tents One Half Gallon" or "Net Contents One Full Quart").
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance in the libels for the 
reason that the labels on the said cans bore the following statements, "Net 
Contents One Full Gallon," "Net Contents One Half Gallon," and "Net Con- 
tents One Full Quart," as the ease might be, which statements were intended 
to be of such a character as to induce the purchaser to believe that the said 
cans contained the amount of the product declared on the label thereof, 
whereas, in truth and in fact, they did not. 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 
package.
On August 13, 1925, Abraham Gash, New York, N. Y., having appeared as 
claimant for the property, judgments of condemnation and forfeiture were 
entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product be released to the 
said claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution 
of bonds in the aggregate sum of $600, in conformity with section 10 of the 
act, conditioned in part that the shortage in volume be corrected by recanning 
or relabeling the product to the satisfaction of this department.
R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.