F. & D. No. 2651. S. No. 957. Issued April 4, 1912. United States Department of Agriculture, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY. NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1302. (Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.) ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF STRAWBERRY PRESERVES. On May 12, 1911, the United States Attorney for the Eastern? District of Louisiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agri?? culture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said dis?? trict a libel, praying condemnation and forfeiture' of 10 thirty-pound? pails of strawberry preserves, found on the premises No. 137'Royal? Street in the city of New Orleans. The product was labeled, on the? side of the pails: " Pure Fruit Preserves?Strawberry?Preserved? with 1/10? benzoate of soda?Alonzo A. Knights and Son Corpo?? ration, 87 and 89 Commercial St., Boston", and on top of the pails:? " 30 net Strawberry Preserves with 1/10 of 1? of benzoate of soda?? Anthony Fabacher?New Orleans, La." Analysis of a sample of said product, made by the Bureau of Chem?? istry of the United States Department of Agriculture, showed it to? contain 16 per cent of glucose. The libel alleged that the product,? after shipment from the State of Massachusetts into the State of New? York and from the State of New York into the State of Louisiana,? remained in the original unbroken packages, and was adulterated in? violation of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and was? therefore liable to seizure for confiscation. Adulteration was al?? leged for the reason that said product was represented to be pure,? genuine strawberry preserves, when in fact there had been mixed? with said preserves 16 per cent of glucose, so as to lower and injuri?? ously affect its quality and strength, and there had been substituted? in part for the genuine and pure strawberry preserves, 16 per cent? of glucose. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the state?? ments on the label were false and misleading in this, that they rep?? resented the said preserves to be pure, genuine strawberry preserves? when, in fact, they were not genuine, pure strawberry preserves,? but contained 16 per cent glucose, which fact was not indicated on? the labels, and for the further reason that said product was an? imitation of, and offered for sale under, the distinctive name of 27202??No. 1302?12 another article, to wit, genuine, pure strawberry preserves, when? in fact it was not such, and the statements on the label were therefore? calculated to deceive and mislead the purchaser. On May 17, 1911, the case coming on for hearing, and Alonzo? A. Knights & Son having appeared as claimants and filed answer? admitting the misbranding of the product as alleged in the libel, the? court entered a decree condemning and forfeiting the product to the? United States and ordering its destruction, but with the proviso that? the same might be released to the claimants upon the payment by? them of all costs and the giving of a good and sufficient bond in a? sum to be approved by the court, conditioned that the said product? should not be again sold contrary to law. JAMBS WILSON,? Secretary of Agriculture. WASHINGTON, D. C, January 22, 191?. 1302