7066. Adulteration and misbranding of olive oil. U. S. * * * v. 26 Cases 
of Alleged Olive Oil. . Consent decree of condemnation and forfei- 
ture. Product ordered released on bond. (F. & D. No. 9624. I. S. No. 
6730-r.    S. No. C-1041.)
On January 22, 1919, the United States attorney for the Northern District 
of Illinois, acting iipon 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 26 cases, 24 of said cases containing 12 1-gallon cans, 1 of said
cases containing 24 4-gallon cans, and 1 of said cases containing 48 J-gallon 
cans of olive oil, at Chicago, Ill., alleging that the article had been shipped on 
October 1, 1918, by B. C Makris, New Yorlc, N. Y., and transported from the 
State of New York into the State of Illinois, and charging adulteration and mis- 
branding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. The article was 
labeled in part, " Finest Quality Table Oil."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that cot- 
tonseed oil had been substituted wholly for the article, and for the further 
reason that it had been substituted in part for the article.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the cans contain- 
ing it were denominated as to the contents thereof, and labeled, marked, and 
branded ''Finest Quality Table Oil Insuperible (design of olive trees, and 
natives picking and packing olives) Termini Imerese Type Winterpressed (in in- 
conspicuous type) Cottonseed Oil Slightly Flavored with Olive Oil," and said 
statements, borne on the cans, were false and misleading in that they purported 
to set forth that the article consisted of genuine olive oil, whereas, in truth and 
in fact, it consisted of cottonseed oil, and for the further reason that said state- 
ments deceived "and misled the purchaser into the belief that it consisted of 
genuine olive oil, whereas, in truth and in fact, it consisted of cottonseed oil. 
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the further reason that said state- 
ments, together with the designs and devices appearing on the labels of the 
cans, conveyed the impression that the article was a foreign product, whereas, 
in truth and in fact, it was a product of domestic manufacture, and for the 
further reason that it was an imitation of and was offered for sale under the 
distinctive name of another article, to wit, genuine olive oil. Misbranding of 
the article was alleged for the further reason that it was food in package form, 
and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on 
the outside of the package in terms of weight or measure.
On April 23, 1919, Guisippi Renzino, Chicago, Ill., claimant, having admitted 
the material allegations in the libel and consented to a decree, judgment of 
condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that 
the product should be released to said claimant upon the payment of the costs 
of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of $1,000, in con- 
formity with section 10 of the act, conditioned in part that the product should 
be properly relabeled.
E. D. BALL,
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.