11202.?Misbranding of olive  oil.     U.  S. v. John Papadeas.     Plea  of guilty.
Fine, $75.     (F. & D. No. 16572.    I. S. Nos. 8136--t, 10834-t, 22561-t.)
On December 14, 1922, 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 far said district an information?
against John Papadeas, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendant,?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about June 20 and?
October 11, 1921, respectively, from the State of New York into the States?
of Utah, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, respectively, of quantities of olive oil which?
was misbranded. A portion of the article was labeled in part: "Imported?
Olive Oil * * * JP Brand i Gal. Net Contents * * * John Papadeas?
Importer and Packer." The remainder of the article was labeled in part:?
"Olio d'Oliva * * * La Preferita Brand 1 Gal. Net Contents * * *?
J. Papadeas Importer and Packer."
Examination of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed that the average volume of 4 cans of the La Preferita?
brand labeled " 1 Gal. Net1 Contents" was 0.985 gallon, that the average?
volume of 46 cans of the JP brand labeled " J Gal. Net Contents " was 0.485?
gallon, and that the average volume of 38 cans of the JP brand labeled "Net?
Contents | Gal." was 0.954 quart.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that the statements, to wit, " i Gal. Net Contents," " 1 Gal. Net Contents,"?
and "Net Contents I Gallon," borne on the respective-sized cans containing?
the article, regarding the said article, were false and misleading in that they?
represented that each of the said cans contained one gallon, one-half gallon,?
or one-quarter gallon, as the case might be, of the said article, and for the?
further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead?
the purchaser into the belief that each of the said cans contained one gallon,?
one-half gallon, or one-quarter gallon, as the case might be, of the said?
article, whereas, in truth and in fact, each of said cans contained a less?
amount. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article?
was food in package form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly?
and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.
On December 26, 1922, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the in??
formation, and the court imposed a fine of $75.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.