10190.?Adulteration   and   misbranding   of   olive   Oil.     TJ.   S.     *      *     *     v.   2
Cases of Olive Oil. Default decree of condemnation, fox-feiture,?
and sale. (P. & D. No. 8904. I. S. Nos. 2676-p, 2?77-p, 2678^p. S. No.?
E-1003.)
On March 25, 1918, the United States attorney for the District of Rhode?
Island, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and con??
demnation of 2 cases of olive oil, remaining unsold in the original unbroken?
packages at Providence, R. I., consigned by R. Bmilo & M. Campolieti, New?
York, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped from New York, N. Y.,?
on or about January 30, 1918, and transported from the State of New York?
into the State of Rhode Island, and charging adulteration and misbranding in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. One case of the article was?
labeled in part, (can) "Olio Puro D'Oliva Lucca Italy Net Contents Full?
Quarter Gallon Olio Puro D'Oliva Garrntito Produzione Propria." The remain??
ing case of the article was labeled in part, (can) "Finest Quality Olive Oil?
Extra Pure Termini Imerese Sicilia-Ifalia \ Gallon Net Guaranteed Absolutely?
Pure."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that?
cottonseed oil had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce and lower?
and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been substituted in?
pari for olive oil.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for tlie reason that the above-quoted?
statements " Olive Oil " and " Olio Puro D'Oliva," respectively, were false and?
misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser; for the* further reason?
that the article was an imitation of, and was offered for sale under the dis??
tinctive name of, another article, to wit, olive oil; for the further reason that?
the said article 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, measure, or numerical count; and for the further reason that?
the said article purported to be a foreign product, when in fact it was a prod??
uct of domestic manufacture, packed in the United States.
On March 31, 1921, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment?
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court?
that the product be relabeled to show the same to be cottonseed oil and the?
quantity of the contents of each can to be 1 pint, 13 fluid ounces, and that it?
be sold by the United States marshal.
C. W. PUGSLEV, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.