24250. Adulteration of canned prunes, and misbranding of canned pitted
cherries.    U.   S.   v.   Ray-Maling   Co.,   Inc.    Plea   of   guilty.    Fine,
$180.     (F. & D. no. 33876.    Sample nos. 47768-A, 60436-A, 60446-A.)
This case was based on a shipment of canned prunes which were found to 
be in part decomposed; and a shipment of canned pitted cherries which were 
short weight and which fell below the standard established by regulation of 
the Secretary of Agriculture, since they were water-packed and were partially 
pitted, and were not labeled to indicate that they were partially pitted or 
properly labeled to show that they were water-packed.
On January 16, 1935, the United States attorney for the District of Oregon, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district 
court an information against the Ray-Maling Co., Inc., a corporation, Hills- 
boro, Oreg., alleging shipment by said company on or about February 27, 
1934, from the State of Oregon into the State of California of a quantity of 
canned prunes which were adulterated in violation of the Food and Drugs 
Act, and on or about February 7, 1934, from the State of Oregon into the State 
of California of a quantity of canned pitted cherries which were misbranded 
in violation of said act as amended.   The articles were labeled in part, respec-
tively: " Water Fresh Prunes UL Jacobson Shealy Co. San Francisco, Calif. 
F. H. Co."; " Newmark Brand Special Extra Packed in Water -Pitted Red 
Cherries Packed for M. A. Newmark & Co. Los Angeles U. S. A. Net Contents 
1 Lb. 4 Oz."
The information charged that the canned prunes were adulterated in that 
they consisted in part of a decomposed vegetable substance.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to the canned pitted cherries for the 
reason that the statements, " Special Extra Pitted Red Cherries" and " Net 
Contents 1 Lb. 4 Oz.", borne on the label, were false and misleading, and for 
the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser since the said statements represented that the 
article was special extra pitted red cherries and that each of the cans con- 
tained 1 pound 4 ounces thereof; whereas it was not special extra pitted red 
cherries but was partially pitted cherries and the cans contained less than 1 
pound 4 ounces. Misbranding of the canned cherries was alleged for the 
further reason that partially pitted red cherries had been offered for sale 
under the distinctive name of another article, namely, pitted red cherries, 
and 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 since the statement made was incorrect. Misbranding 
of the canned cherries was alleged for the further reason that it was canned 
food and fell below the standard of quality and condition promulgated by 
the Secretary of Agriculture, and its package'or label did not bear a plain 
and conspicuous statement prescribed by regulations of this Department, indicat- 
ing that it fell below such standard.
On January 29, 1935, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendant 
company and the court imposed a fine of $180.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.