F.  & D,  No.   1367.
S. No. f)01.	
Issued September 10   1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1623.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
MISBRANDING OF YANILLA EXTRACT.
On March 30, 1910, the United States Attorney for the Southern?
District of Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricul??
ture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district?
a libel for the seizure and condemnation of one barrel containing 30?
gallons, more or less, purporting and represented to be vanilla?
extract, remaining unsold in the original unbroken package and?
within the premises of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.,?
of Texas, at its freight office in Houston, Tex., alleging that the?
product had been shipped, on or about March 11, 1910, by the?
Hudson Manufacturing Co., Chicago, 111., and transported from the?
State of Illinois into the State of Texas, and charging misbranding?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The product was labeled:?
" Prime vanilla extract?made from the extractive matter of prime?
vanilla beans and sweetened with sugar?Hudson Manufacturing Co.,?
Chicago, U. S. A.?guaranteed under the food and drug act June 30,?
1906 No. 3349 ".
Misbranding was alleged in the libel for the reason that the product?
was invoiced to the consignee as genuine vanilla extract and that its?
color was such as to give it the appearance of genuine vanilla extract,?
but in truth and in fact it was not genuine vanilla extract, but a?
prochict which had been colored and mixed by the addition of arti??
ficial coloring matter and cheaper substance in a manner whereby?
inferiority was concealed and with the purpose of imitating genuine?
vanilla extract. Misbranding was further alleged for the reason?
that the barrel containing the product was described in the invoice
5119S??No. 1623?12
substantially as vanilla extract, whereas it contained a very small?
per cent of genuine vanilla extract. Misbranding was further?
alleged for the reason that the product was sold under such condi??
tions and representations as led the consignee to believe that it was?
genuine vanilla extract. The said representations and descriptions?
of the same were misleading and false and calculated to deceive and?
mislead the purchaser as to the true character and quality of the?
product and was a deceit and misbranding within the meaning of the?
Food and Drugs Act. Misbranding was further alleged for the?
reason that the product could not truthfully be called and described?
as genuine vanilla extract, and was not genuine vanilla extract, but?
merely an imitation and contained merely a neutral spirit colored?
and flavored by the addition of artificial matter, to wit, a solution of?
vanilla, substituted in whole or in part for vanilla extract.
6n March 21, 1912, the Hudson Manufacturing Go., Chicago, 111.,?
claimant, having been granted permission to withdraw all answers?
filed by it and to retire from the cause, judgment of condemnation?
and forfeiture was entered and it was further ordered that the?
product should be sold by the United States marshal.
W. M. HAYS,
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.?
WASHINGTON, D. C, June $0, WW.
1623
P. & D. No. 1489.
I. S. No. 8460-b.	
Issued September 10, 1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1624.