1390. Misbranding of candy.    XT. S. v. 3 and 2 Cartons of Candy.    Default decree
of condemnation and destruction. (B. D. C. No. 2318. Sample Nos. 
33286-B, 33287-B.)
Both lots of this product were packed in deceptive containers. One lot con- 
sisted of gum drops, which were wrapped in wax paper with twisted ends, and 
which occupied only about one-half of the space in their containers. The other 
lot was contained in a cellophane-wrapped box with %-inch extension edges on 
top and bottom. This box contained three layers, the top one being well-filled 
and containing about 23 chocolates and 8 candy-covered peanuts. The second 
and third layers contained only about 6 chocolates and 7 gum drops loosely 
packed with cardboard separators between the pieces. The statement of the 
quantity of the contents was inconspicuous in both of these lots. The second 
lot was also short of the declared weight, and was labeled "Nuts and Fruits 
Creams," but contained no nuts except a few peanuts and no fruit, and most 
of the creams were artificially flavored.
Orator about July 8,1940, the United States attorney for the District of Connec- 
ticut filed a libel against five cartons of candy at Bridgeport, Conn., alleging 
that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about June 18, 
1940, by the Marvel Novelty Co., Inc., from New York, N. Y.; and charging that 
it was misbranded. The articles were labeled in part: "Nuts and Fruits Creams 
Superior Quality [design of a bowl of fruit] * * * One Pound Net"; or 
"Manhattan   *    *   *   wrapped candy net weight 3 oz."
The nuts and fruits creams were alleged to be misbranded in that the state- 
ments "one pound net" and "Nuts and Fruits Creams" and the design of a bowl 
of fruit, were false and misleading since they were incorrect; and in that they 
were in package form and did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity 
of the contents; in that th'ey were fabricated from two or more ingredients 
and the label did not bear the common or usual name of each such ingredient; 
and in that they contained artificial flavoring and did not bear labeling stating 
that- fact.
Both lots were alleged to be misbranded in that their containers were so 
made, formed, or filled as to be misleading; and in that the quantity of con-
tents statement required by law to appear on the label was not prominently 
placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared with other words, state- 
ments, designs, or devices, in the labeling) as to render it likely to be read by 
the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.
On September 23, 1940, no claimant having appeared, judgment of condemna- 
tion was entered and the product was ordered destroyed.
MAPLE SIRUP