9285. Adulteration  and  Misbranding of  canned  tomatoes.     IT.   S.     *     *     * 
v.    Charles   "Webster.    Plea   of   nolo   contendere.     Fine,   $60   and
costs.     (F. & D. No. 13884.    I.  S. Nos. 15904-r, 15125-r,  13989-r, 13185-r.)
On March 18, 1921, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court 
of the United States for said district an information against Charles Webster, 
trading at East New Market and Sharptown, Md., alleging shipment by said 
defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about October 13, 24, 
and 5, and September 29, 1919, respectively, from the State of Maryland into 
the States of Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania, of quantities of 
canned tomatoes which were adulterated and misbranded. The article was 
labeled in part: " Rose Hill Brand " (design of red tomato) " Tomatoes * * * 
Packed By Chas. Webster At East New Market, Dorchester Co., Md."
Examination by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of a sample 
taken from each of the four consignments showed that the product contained 
added water.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a substance, to wit, water, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to 
lower and reduce and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been 
substituted in part for tomatoes, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, "To- 
matoes," together with the design and device of a red tomato, borne on the 
labels attached to the cans containing the article, regarding the article and the 
ingredients and substances contained therein, was false and misleading in that 
it represented that said article consisted wholly of tomatoes, and, for the 
further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and 
mislead the purchaser into the belief that it consisted wholly of tomatoes, 
whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not consist wholly of tomatoes, but did 
consist in part of added water.
On March IS, 1921, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the 
information, and the court imposed a fine of $60 and costs.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.