3243. Misbranding of macaroni product. IT. S. v. 100 Boxes of Macaroni?
Product. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and de??
struction.     (F. & D. No. 5511.    S. No. 2075.)
On January 8, 1914, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of?
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in?
the District Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure?
and condemnation of 100 boxes, each containing 25 pounds, more or less, of?
macaroni product, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at 902?
South Seventh St., and elsewhere, Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the product?
had been shipped on or about December 22, 1913, and transported from the?
State of Delaware into the State of Pennsylvania, and charging misbranding?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The product was labeled: " White?
Star of Italy Gragnano style near Napoli (picture of star) (picture of fac??
tory) Trade mark Manufactured by Antonio Oiricola Artificial Coloring?
Guaranteed by the Pure Food Act June 30th, 1906.    Serial No. 52687 "
Misbranding of the product was alleged in the libel for the reason that it?
was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, in that the boxes con??
taining the article of food each bore a label as set forth above, the words?
" Gragnano" and " Napoli" being in large and conspicuous letters, and the?
words " style near " being in small and inconspicuous letters, so that the pur??
chaser would be deceived and misled into believing that said article was made?
at Gragnano near the city of Naples in the kingdom of. Italy, whereas, in truth?
and in fact, the said article of food was not made at Gragnano near the city?
of Naples in the kingdom of Italy, but had been produced in the city of Wil??
mington, in the State of Delaware, in the United States of America. Mis??
branding was alleged for the further reason that the product was labeled so as?
to purport to be a foreign product when not so, in that each of said boxes bore?
a label in character as aforesaid, by virtue of which the said article purported?
to have been made at Gragnano near the city of Naples, in the kingdom of?
Italy, whereas, in truth and in fact, the said article had not been made at?
Gragnano, near the city of Naples, in the kingdom of Italy, but had been pro??
duced in the city of Wilmington, in the State of Delaware, in the United States?
of America. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the label?
on each of the boxes containing the article of food bore a statement, to wit,?
" Guaranteed by the Pure Food Act June 30th, 1906," which said statement?
was false and misleading in this particular, to wit, in that the purchaser would?
be deceived and misled into believing that the pureness and origin of the said?
article of food were guaranteed by the United States Government instead of?
being guaranteed by the manufacturers of the same under the provisions of?
the Pure Food Act of June 30, 1906, whereas, in truth and in fact, the pure??
ness and origin of said article of food were guaranteed only by the manufac??
turers of the same under the provisions of said act.
Supplement.]    SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	425
On February 9, 1914, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg??
ment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the?
court that the property should be destroyed by the United States marshal.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, June S, 1914-