1861. Adulteration and misbranding of candy.    U. S. v. 46 Cartons of Candy.
Default   decree  of  condemnation and destruction.     (F.  D.  C.  No.  3675. 
Sample Nos. 36950-E to 36953-B, incl.)
This product, with the exception of one lot, was adulterated because of the 
presence of rodent hairs and in some instances, insect fragments. All lots 
were misbranded in one or more of the following respects: Shortage from the 
declared weight, containers that were not filled to their capacity, or failure to 
comply with certain labeling requirements of the law.
On January 16, 1941, the United States attorney for the District of Maine 
filed a libel against 46 cartons of candy at Portland, Maine, alleging that the 
article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about December 9, 1940, 
by Louis Glickstern from Boston, Mass.; and charging that it was misbranded 
and that all lots with one exception were also adulterated. The article was 
variously labeled as hereinafter indicated.
The product, with the exception of one lot labeled "Evangeline Chocolate 
Cordial Cherries," was alleged to be adulterated in that it consisted in whole 
or in part of a filthy substance;
One lot labeled "Ye Olde Toll House" was alleged to be misbranded in that 
it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed to bear 
the common or usual name of each ingredient.
One lot labeled "1 Lb. Cherry Basket" was alleged to be misbranded in that 
the statement "1 Lb." was false and misleading since it was incorrect; in that 
its container was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading; in that it was
in package form and did not bear a label containing the name and place of 
business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and did not bear a label 
containing an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents; in that it was 
fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed to bear the common 
or usual name of each ingredient.
One lot labeled "Chocolate Malted Balls" was alleged to be misbranded in 
that it was in package form and did not bear a label containing the name and 
place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor and did not bear 
an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents*
One lot labeled in part "Evangeline Chocolate Cordial Cherries" was alleged 
to be misbranded in that the statement "1 Pound Net" was false and mis- 
leading since it was incorrect; in that it was in package form and failed to 
bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents; in that its con- 
tainer was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading; and in that it was 
fabricated from two or more ingredients and its label failed to bear the com- 
mon or usual name of each ingredient.
One lot labeled "Mayflower Chocolate Covered Cherries" was alleged to be 
misbranded in that the statement "Net Weight One Pound" was false and 
misleading since it was incorrect; in that it was in package form and failed 
to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents; and in that its 
container was so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.
One lot labeled "Kenwyn Chocolate Coated Cherries" was alleged to be mis- 
branded in that it was fabricated from two or more ingredients and the label 
failed to bear the common or usual name of each ingredient.
One lot labeled in part "Priscilla Chocolate Cordial Cherries" was alleged to 
be misbranded in that its container was so made, formed, or filled as to be 
misleading.
Portions of the product were alleged to be misbranded further for the fol- 
lowing reasons: (Evangeline, Kenwyn, and Mayflower brands) The name and 
place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; (Evangeline 
and Kenwyn brands) the declaration of artificial flavoring and coloring and 
chemical preservative; and (Mayflower brand) the statement of the quantity 
of contents, all of which statements are required by the act to appear on the 
label, were not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as com- 
pared with other words, statements, designs, or devices in the labeling) as to 
render them likely to be read by the ordinary individual under customary 
conditions of purchase and use.
On February 6, 1941, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- 
tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.