S\ & D. He. 341?.
S. No. 1273.	
issued September 11, 1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1683.
(Given pursuant to section £ of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF VINEGAR.
On February 14, 1912, the United States Attorney for the South??
ern District of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of?
Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said?
district a libel for the seizure and condemnation of 10 'barrels of so-?
called sugar vinegar remaining unsold in the original unbroken?
packages and in possession of C. E. Ward, Decatur, 111. alleging that?
the product had been shipped by the Louisville Cider & Vinegar?
Works, Louisville, Ky., on or about January 2, 1912, and transported?
from the State of Kentucky into the State of Illinois, and charging?
adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs?
Act. The product was labeled: " Made expressly for C. E. Ward fe?
Co., Sugar Vinegar, Decatur, Ills." " 50 These goods guaranteed to?
comply with the Pure Food Law and all its requirements."
Adulteration was alleged in the libel for the reason that the produce?
consisted in whole or in part of distilled vinegar which had been?
packed in imitation of sugar vinegar so that distilled vinegar had?
been substituted wholly or in part for sugar vinegar and so that the?
product was so packed and mixed in a manner whereby inferiority?
was concealed. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the?
brand, label, or device on the product bore a statement regarding?
the product and the ingredients or substances contained therein which?
was false and misleading in that each brand, label, or device pur??
ported and declared that the product was sugar vinegar, when in?
truth and in fact it consisted in whole or in part of distilled vinegar?
made-in imitation of sugar vinegar. Misbranding was alleged for?
the further reason that the product was an imitation of and was?
offered for sale under the distinctive name of sugar vinegar, when?
in truth and in fact it was not sugar vinegar, but was an imitation?
thereof.
On May 9, 1912, no claimant having appeared for .the property,
judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered and it was
further ordered that the product should be sold by the United States
marshal after rebranding.
W.M.HAYS,
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.?
WASHINGTON, D. C, July ?6\ 1912.
65006??No. 1683?12