Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

and Drugs Act, on or about October 15, 1931, from the State of Mississippi into the State of Louisiana, of a quantity of shell eggs which were adulterated.

It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that it consisted in part of a decomposed animal substance.

On April 3, 1933, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information, and the court imposed a fine of $10.

M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 21047. Adulteration and misbranding of butter. U. S. v. 15 Cartons of

Butter. Decree of condemnation entered. Product released

under bond. (F. & D. no. 30104. Sample no. 29838-A.) This case involved a quantity of butter, samples of which were found to contain less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat, the standard for butter established by Congress.

On March 13, 1933, the United States attorney for the Southern District of California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court of the United States a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 15 cartons of butter at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging that the article had heen shipped in interstate commerce, on or about March 7, 1933, by the Western Creamery Co., from Salt Lake City, Utah, to Los Angeles, Calif., and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: "Meadow Brook Butter."

It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that a product containing less than 80 percent of milk fat had been substituted wholly or in jart for butter.

Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the article was labeled in part, " Butter", which was false and misleading, since it contained less than 80 perment of milk fat. On April 11, 1933, the Western Creamery Co. entered an appearance and claim admitting the allegations of the libel, and filed a bond in the sum of $300, conditioned that the product would not be disposed of in violation of the law. On April 24, 1933, the product having been released to the claimant and having been reworked and found in compliance with the law, a decree was entered condemning the product and ordering that the release be made permanent upon payment of costs of the proceedings.

M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 21048. Misbranding of candy. U. S. v. 38 Cartons and 8 Cartons of Candy.

Decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Produet released under

bond. (F. & D. no. 29932. Sample nos. 16598-A, 16599-A.) This case involved a shipment of candy, sample packages of which were found to contain less than 1 pound, the declared weight.

On March 14, 1933, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court of the United States a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 46 cartons of candy at Boston, Mass., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about January 19, 1933, by the McGregor Toffee Co., from Brooklyn, N. Y., to Boston, Mass., and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended. The article was labeled in part: (Packages) " McGregor Toffee Manufactured by McGregor Toffee Co., Brooklyn, N. Y., Net Weight 1 Lb."

It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the statement on the labels, “ Net Weight 1 Lb.", was false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser; and for the further reason that the article was in package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package, since the quantity stated on the label was not correct.

On April 5, 1933, C. S. Allen, trading as the McGregor Toffee Co., Brooklyn, N. Y., having appeared as claimant for the property and having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product be released to 'the claimant upon payment of costs and the deposit of cash bond in the sum of $125 conditioned that the packages and wrappers be removed and destroyed.

M. L. Wilson, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

De

21049. Adulteration of dried pears. U. S. v. 9 Cases of Dried Pears.

fault decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (F. &

D. no. 29936. Sample no. 21088-A.) This case involved a shipment of dried pears found to contain arsenic and lead in amounts which might have rendered them injurious to health.

On February 27, 1933, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court of the United States a libel praying seizure and condempation of nine cases of pears at Philadelphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about November 24, 1932, by Rosenberg Bros. & Co., from San Francisco, Calif., to Philadelphia, Pa., and charging adulteration in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: "Ensign Brand California Fancy Halves Pears.”

It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that it contained added poisonous or deleterious ingredients, arsenic and lead, which might have rendered it harmful to health.

On April 18, 1933, 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 destroyed by the United States marshal.

M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 21050. Misbranding of candy. U. S. v, 162 Boxes of Confectionery. De

fault decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (F. &

D. no. 29596. Sample no. 23879-A.) This case involved an interstate shipment of candy which was short weight.

On December 7, 1932, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court of the United States a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 162 boxes of confectionery at St. Louis, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce into the State of Missouri, on or about November 15 and November 18, 1932, by Mars, Inc., Chicago, Ill., and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended. The article was labeled in part: “The 3 Musketeers. Over pound

A Marg Confection Net Weight 448 Oz."

It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the statements on the label, “Over 14 pound” and “Net weight 44 Oz.”, were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was in package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package, since the statements made were incorrect.

On February 15, 1933, 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 destroyed by the United States marshal.

M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

21051. Adulteration and misbranding of butter. U. S. v. Yerington Cream. ery Co.

Plea of guilty. Fine, $100. (F. & D. no. 30138. Sample nos. 504-A to 507-A, incl., 522-A, 12801-A, 12802-A.) This action was based on interstate shipments of butter, samples of which were found to contain less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat, the standard for butter established by Congress.

On May 19, 1933, the United States attorney for the District of Nevada, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court an information against the Yerington Creamery Co., a corporation, Mason, Nev., alleging shipment by said company, in various shipments between June 13 and June 29, 1932, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, from the State of Nevada into the State of California, of quantities of butter which was adul. terated, and portions of which were also misbranded. The article was labeled variously : “Yerington Creamery Co., Mason, Nevada"; “ Pasteurized Creamery Butter

From Yerington Creamery, Mason, Nevada "; "Mayrose Pasteurized Extra Creamery Butter

Distributed by Western Meat Co. U. S. A.”

It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that a product which contained less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat had been substituted for butter, a product which should contain not less than 80 percent of milk fat as prescribed by the act of March 4, 1923, which the article purported to be.

Misbranding of portions of the article was alleged for the reason that the statement, “ Butter", on the packages, was false and misleading, and for the further reason that the article was labeled so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, since the said statement represented that the article was butter, whereas it was not butter, since it contained less than 80 percent by weight of milk fat.

On June 5, 1933, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100.

M, L, Wilson, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 21052. Adulteration of dried peaches. U. s. v. 50 Cases of Dried Peaches.

Default decree of destruction entered. (F. & D. no. 29999. Sample

no. 22815--A.) This case involved a shipment of dried peaches that were insect-infested. On April 12, 1933, the United States attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 50 cases of dried peaches at Mobile, Ala., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce, on March 2, 1933, by the California Prune & Apricot Growers Association, from Reedley, Calif., and charging adulteration in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: "Yellow Ribbon Brand Yellow Peaches Prepared with Sulphur Dioxide California Peach and Fig Growers Association, Fresno, Calif."

It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that it consisted wholly or in part of a filthy, decomposed, or putrid vegetable substance.

On June 24, 1933, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment was entered ordering that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.

M. L, WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 21053. Misbranding of potatoes. U. S. v. 256 Sacks of Potatoes. Decree

ordering product destroyed unless properly rela beled. (F. & D.

no. 30507. Sample no. 39002-A.) This case involved a shipment of potatoes, sample sacks of which contained less than 100 pounds, the declared weight.

On May 24, 1933, the United States attorney for the Western District of Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 255 sacks of potatoes at Kansas City, Mo., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 18, 1933, by the Terrebonne Cooperative Association, from Houma, La., and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended. The article was labeled in part : “ Louisiana Triumphs, 100 lbs. net when packed Houma Brand, Grown and packed by Terrebonne Cooperative Association, Houma, La.”

It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the statement on the label, “100 lbs. net”, was false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser, and for the further reason that the article was in package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package, since the statement made was incorrect.

On May 26, 1933, the Terrebonne Cooperative Association, Houma, La., having appeared as claimant for the property and having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment was entered ordering that the property be destroyed unless the claimant pay costs of the proceedings, and file in court a statement within 10 days, signed by a representative of this Department, showing that the sacks had been relabeled to show the correct weight.

M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 21034. Misbranding of potatoes. U. S. v. 260 Sacks of Potatoes. Consent

decree of destruction, (F. & D. no. 30540. Sample no. 39005-A.) This case involved a shipment of potatoes in sacks which were not labeled with a statement of the quantity of the contents, as required by law.

On May 29, 1933, the United States attorney for the Western District of Tennessee, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 266 sacks of potatoes at Memphis, Tenn., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Terrebonne Cooperative Association, from the State of Louisiana into the State of Tennessee, on or about May 18, 1933, and charging misbranding in violation of

the Food and Drugs Act as amended. The article was labeled, “ Unclassified."

It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that it was in package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.

On June 10, 1933, the owner of the product having consented to the destruction of the potatoes, since they were in a decaying condition, judgment was entered ordering that they be destroyed by the United States marshal.

M. L. Wilson, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 21055. Misbranding of potatoes. U. S. v. 200 Sacks of Potatoes. Product

released under bond to be rela beled. (F. & D. no. 30479. Sample no,

35616-A.) This case involved a shipment of potatoes, sample sacks of which were found to contain less than 100 pounds, the declared weight.

On May 19, 1933, the United States attorney for the District of Nebraska, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 200 sacks of potatoes at Beatrice, Nebr., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce, on or about May 12, 1933, by Emil (Erwin) Wiederstein, from Convict Camp Switch, Tex., and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended. The article was labeled in part: " Texas New Potatoes, 100 lbs. net weight when packed.”

It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the state. ment, “100 lbs. net weight", was false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was food in package form and was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package in terms of weight.

On May 31, 1933, Erwin Wiederstein, having appeared as claimant for the property and having consented to the entry of a decree of condemnation and forfeiture, judgment was entered adjudging the product misbranded and ordering that it be released to the claimant upon payment of costs and the execution of a bond in the sum of $900, conditioned that it be relabeled to show the true weight or resacked to the declared weight.

M. L. Wilson, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 21056. Misbranding of potatoes. U. S. v. 176 Sacks of Potatoes. Default

decree of condemnation and destruction. (F. & D. no. 30418. Sample

no. 35602-A.) This action involved a shipment of potatoes, sample sacks of which contained less than 50 pounds, the declared weight.

On May 5, 1933, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 175 sacks of potatoes at Salina Kans., alleging that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce, or or about April 28, 1933, by Alexander Marketing Co., from San Benito, Tex. and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended The article was labeled in part: “New Triumph Potatoes

Net Weight 50 Lbs. when packed.”

It was alleged in the libel that the article was misbranded in that the state ment, “50 Lbs. when packed ”, was false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason tha the article was in package form and the quantity of the contents was noj plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package, since th statement made was incorrect.

On June 2, 1933, no claimant having appeared for the property, and the potatoes having spoiled and become unfit for use, judgment of condemnation was entered and it was ordered by the court that they be destroyed by the United States marshal.

M. L. Wilson, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 21057. Adulteration and misbranding of salad oil. U. s. v, 4 Boxes of Oil

et al. Default decree of destruction. (F. & D. nos. 30043, 30419

30420. Sample nos. 31976-A, 31992-A, 31993-A, 31994-A.) These cases involved various lots of oil labeled to convey the impression that it was olive oil of foreign origin. Examination showed that the article consisted principally of cottonseed oil containing a small amount of olive oil Certain lots also were artificially colored and flavored.

1."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

On April 6, and May 8, 1933, the United States attorney for the District of

Connecticut, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in

the district court libels praying seizure and condemnation of 154 gallons,

174 half gallons, and 96 quarts of salad oil in part at Waterbury, Conn., and

in part at Hartford, Conn., alleging that the article had been shipped in

interstate commerce between December 22, 1932, and April 5, 1933, by V.

Buoncore, or Vincent Buoncore, from New York, N.Y., and charging adulteration

in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. A portion of the article was labeled :

(Sides of can) “ Superfine Oil Imperio Brand

Virgin Olive Oil"; (top

of can) “L'Olio D'liva Contenuto In Questa Latta E'Importato Dall'Italia

Olive Oil

Imported From Italy." A portion was labeled :

"Aoliva Brand Fine Oil

Warranted pure under chemical analysis."

The remainder was labeled : “Olio Lucca Type il Migliore

Guaranteed

pure under chemical analysis."

It was alleged in the libels that the article was adulterated in that cotton-

seed oil had been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce, lower, and

injuriously affect its quality. Adulteration was alleged for the further rea-

son that mixtures consisting largely of cottonseed oil containing a small

amount of olive oil, portions of which were artificially colored and flavored,

had been substituted for olive oil, which the article purported to be.

Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, “ The Contents

of Olive Oil in this can is imported from Italy

Superfine Oil Imperio

* Virgin Olive Oil", with respect to portions, Olio Lucca Type il

Migliore.

Guaranteed pure under chemical analysis ", with respect

to a portion, and "Aoliva Brand Fine Oil

Warranted pure under

chemical analysis [Italian national colors and designs of olive branches] ”,

with respect to a portion, were false and misleading and deceived and misled

the purchaser, since they were framed and designed to imply that the article

was pure imported oil. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that

the article purported to be a foreign product, when not so, and for the further

reason that it was offered for sale under the distinctive name of another

article. Misbranding of the portions of the product which were artificially
colored and flavored was alleged for the further reason that it was an
imitation of another article.

On June 29, 1933, no climant having appeared for the property, judgment

were entered ordering that the product be destroyed by the United States

marshal.

M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

21058. Adulteration of canned salmon. U. S. v, 13 Cases and 26 Cases of

Canned Salmon. (F. & D. nos. 30004, 30023. Sample nos. 20193-A,

22929-A.)

These cases involved an interstate shipment of canned salmon which was

found to be in part decomposed.

On March 28, 1933, the United States attorney for the Northern District of

California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the

district court a libel praying seizure and condemnation of 13 cases of canned

salmon at Stockton, Calif. On March 29, 1933, the United States attorney for

the Southern District of California filed a libel against 26 cases of canned sal-

mon at Bakersfield, Calif. It was alleged in the libels that the article had been

shipped in interstate commerce, on or about September 9, 1932, by Libby,

MeNeill & Libby, from Seattle, Wash., to San Francisco, Calif., that it had

been reshipped to Stockton and Bakersfield, Calif., and that it was adulterated

in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part:

“Libby's Fancy Red Alaska Salmon."

T'he libels charged that the article was adulterated in that it consisted in

part of a decomposed and putrid animal substance.

On May 16 and May 18, 1933, no claimant having appeared, judgments of

condemnation and forfeiture were entered, and it was ordered by the court

that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.

M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

21059. Adulteration of evaporated apple chops. U. s. v. 71 Sacks of Evap-

orated Apple Chops. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,

and destruction, (F. & D. no. 30350. Sample no. 35107-A.)
This case involved an interstate shipment of a quantity of evaporated apple
chops that were found to be insect-infested, decayed, and dirty.

« ForrigeFortsett »