7717>. Adulteration and misbranding' oi canned tuna fisli. tl. S. * * * v. 232 Cases of Canned Tuna Fish. Consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product released on bond. (F, & D. Nos. 12132, 12133, 12134. I. S. Nos. 5-r, 7-r, 32-r, 34-r. S. No. E-1042.) On February 4, 1920, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, 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 232 cases of canned tuna fish, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about October 27, 1910, by the Curtis Corporation, Long Beach, Calif., and transported from the State of California into the State of New York, and charging adulteration and misbranding in viol-ation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part, "Curtis Quality Tuna Supreme Olive Oil * * * Pure Olive Oil * * V Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel in that oils other than olive oil had been mixed and packed with, and substituted in part for, the article. Misbranding of the article was alleged in that the packages and labels on the cans containing the article "bore statements regarding the article and the ingre- dients and substances contained therein, to wit, "Curtis Quality Tuna Supreme Olive Oil * * * " and " Pure Olive Oil * * V which were false and mis- leading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Further misbranding was alleged in the information in that the article was an imitation of, and offered for sale under the distinctive name of, another article. On June 15, 1920, the Curtis Corpo-ration having appeared as claimant, con- sent decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and the product was ordered released to the claimant on the' filing of a bond in the sum of $2,500, conditioned in part that the article be disposed of in conformity with section. 10 of the act. E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.