11950. Misbranding of olive oil. V. S. v. Nicholas "V. Deligiannis and 
Antonios V. Deligiannis (Deligiannis Bros.). Pleas of guilty. 
Fine, $200. (F. & D. No. 16232. I. S. Nos. 239-t, 240-t, 3518-t, 3519-t, 
3K20-t, 3521-t, 3522-t.)
On July 9, 1923, the United States attorney for the Northern District of 
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
Nicholas V. Deligiannis and Antonios V. Deligiannis, copartners, trading as 
Deligiannis Bros., Chicago, Ill., alleging shipment by said defendants, in viola- 
tion of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, in various consignments, namely, 
on or about April 2, August 26, and September 13, 1921, from the State of Illi- 
nois into the State of Minnesota, and on or about August 3 and 26,1921, from the 
State of Illinois into the State of Indiana, of quantities of olive oil which was 
misbranded. The article was labeled in part: (Cans) "Net Contents One 
Pint" (or "One Quart" or "Two Quarts") " * * * Pure Olive Oil 
* * * Universal Brand * * * Imported And Packed By Deligiannis 
Brothers Chicago, Ill."
Examination by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department of samples 
taken from the various consignments showed that the said cans contained less 
than the quantities declared on the respective labels.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that the statements, to wit, " Net Contents One Pint," " Net Contents One 
Quart," and " Net Contents Two Quarts," borne on the respective-sized cans 
containing the said article, were false and misleading in that they represented 
that each of the said cans contained 1 pint, 1 quart, or 2 quarts net of. the 
article, as the case might be, and for the further reason that the article was 
labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the 
belief that each of the said cans contained 1 pint, 1 quart, or 2 quarts net 
of the said article, as the case might be, whereas the said cans did not con- 
tain the amounts declared on the labels but did contain less amounts. Mis- 
branding was alleged for the further reason that the article was food in 
package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and con- 
spicuously marked on the outside of the packages.
On October 26, 1923, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the informa- 
tion, and the court imposed a fine of $200.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.