1993. Misbranding of canned peas.    IT. S. v. 267 Cases of Canned Peas  (and 5
other  seizure actions against canned peas).     Consent  decrees of con- 
demnation.    Product ordered released under bond for relabeling.     (F. D.
O.  Sos.  2415,  2481,  3434,   3458,  3613,  3872.    Sample Nos.  2659-B, 24978-E, 
28943-B, 33186-E, 34683-E, 34684-B, 50055-E.)
Between July 24, 1940, and February 26, 1941, the United States attorneys 
for the District of New Jersey, District, of Massachusetts, District of Connecti- 
cut, District of Maryland, District of Columbia, and the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania filed libels against 267 cases of canned peas at Jersey City, N. J., 
130 cases at Boston, Mass., 343 cases at New Haven* Conn., 611 cases at Balti- 
more, Md., 314 cases at Washington, D. C, and 394 cases at Philadelphia, Pa., 
alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce within the 
period from on or about June 6 to on or about December 2, 1940, by A. W. Sisk 
& Son, the shipments having been made from Machipongo, Va., to Newark, N. J., 
and Boston, Mass.; and from Lewes, Del., to New Haven, Conn., Baltimore, Md., 
Washington, D. C, and Philadelphia, Pa. The article was labeled variously in 
part: "Escco Brand [or "Virginia's Best"] Early June Peas * * * Packed 
by Eastern Shore Canning Col Machipongo, Va."; "L. D. Early June Peas * * * 
Packed by Charles Mills, Lewes, Delaware"; and "S C [or "Columbus Quality"] 
Brand Early June Peas."
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that it purported to be a food for 
which a standard of quality had been prescribed by regulations as provided 
by law, but its quality fell below such standard, and its label did not bear, in 
such manner or form as the regulations specify, a statement that it fell below 
such standard.
Between September 13, 1940, and March 24, 1941, the Eastern Shore Canning 
Co. having appeared as claimant for the lot seized at Boston, Mass., and A. W. 
Sisk & Son having appeared as claimant in the remaining actions, judgments 
of condemnation were entered and the product in each instance was ordered 
released under bond to the respective claimants conditioned that it be relabeled 
in compliance with the law.