14780. Misbranding of canned tuna fish.    V. S. v. 56 Cases of Canned Tuna
Fish.     Consent  decree  of  condemnation  and forfeiture.     Product 
released under bond.     (F.  & D. No.  18809.    I. S.  No.  12951-v.    S.  No.
E-4852.)
On July 2, 1924, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New 
York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District 
Court of the United States for said district a libel praying seizure and con- 
demnation of 56 cases of canned tuna fish, remaining in the original unbroken
packages at Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped by 
the Curtis Corp., from Long Beach, Calif., on or about April 22, 1924, and 
transported from the State of California into the State of New York, and 
charging misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act as amended. The 
.article was labeled in part: " Curtis White Meat Tuna Net Contents 6y2 Oz. 
*    *    *    Packed By The Curtis Corporation Long Beach, Cal."
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that the 
statement "Net Contents 6% Oz.," borne on the label, was false and mis- 
leading and deceived and misled the purchaser.
On February 11, 1925, the Curtis Corp., Long Beach, Calif., claimant, having 
.admitted the allegations of the libel and having consented to the entry of 
a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was 
?ordered by the court that the product be released to the said claimant upon 
payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the 
sum of $650, conditioned that it be relabeled in part: " Slack Filled. Contents 
4% Ounces Tuna Meat. Should Contain Not Less Than 5% Ounces Tuna 
Meat.    Contents Tuna And Oil 6y2 Ounces."
W. M. JARDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.