11511. Adnlteration and misbranding of salad oil. U. S. v. 42 Cans of?
Alleged Salad Oil. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture,?
and sale.     (F. & D. No. 15046.    I. S. Nos. 695'9-t, 6960-t.    S. No. E-3382.)
On June 17, 1921, the United States attorney for the Middle District of Penn??
sylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district a libel praying the seizure?
and condemnation of 42 cans of alleged salad oil, remaining in the original?
unbroken packages at Pittston, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped?
by the Youngstown Macaroni Co., Youngstown, Ohio, on or about May 21,?
1921, and transported from the State of Ohio into the State of Pennsylvania,?
and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and?
Drugs ^ct, as amended. The article was labeled in part: "Tripoli Italiana?
Brand Oil Winterpressed Cottonseed Flavored With Pure Olive Oil Salad Oil?
A Compound 1 Quart, 1 Pint and 11 Fl. Oz. Net" (or "3 Quarts, 1 Pint and?
6 Fl. Oz. Net") "Guaranteed By The Youngstown Macaroni Co. Youngs??
town. O. Under The Pure Food And Drugs Act, June 30, 1906. Serial No.?
5179."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that?
cottonseed oil had been mixed and packed with and substituted wholly or?
in part for the said article. Adulteration was alleged for the further rea??
son that the article was mixed in a manner whereby its inferiority was con??
cealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements on the labels?
of the cans containing the article, " Tripoli Italiana Brand Oil * * *?
Guaranteed * * * Under The Pure Food And Drugs Act, June 30 1906,?
Serial No. 5179," together with an Italian design, were false and misleading?
and deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was alleged for the?
further reason that the article purported to be a foreign product when not so,
N.J. 11501-11550.] SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.        279
for the further reason that it was an imitation of and .offered for sale under?
the distinctive name of another article, and for the further reason that it?
was food in package form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly?
and conspicuously marked on the outside of each package.
On July 8, 1922, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment?
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered hy the court?
that the labels on the cans containing the article be obliterated and the prod??
uct sold by the United States marshal.
HOWARD M. GORE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.