P. & D. No.  3348.
S. No. 1229.	
Issued October 24, 1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1727.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
MISBRANDING OF KNEIPP MALT COFFEE.
On January 6, 1912, the United States Attorney for the District?
of Maryland, 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 23 cases of Kneipp Malt?
Coffee remaining unsold in the original unbrokeli packages and in?
possession of Andrew Eeiter & Co., Baltimore, Md., alleging that?
the product had been shipped from the State of Pennsylvania into?
the State of Maryland, date of shipment not shown, and charging?
misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The product?
was labeled: " 2 Doz. Small Berry Kneipp Malt Coffee Cereal Substi??
tute for Coffee 2 Doz. Small Berry Kneipp Malt Coffee Manufac??
tured by Kneipp Malt Food Company, Manitowoc, Wis."
Misbranding was alleged in the libel for the reason that the prod??
uct, which was merely roasted malt, was an imitation of and offered?
for sale under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, malt?
coffee; and misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the?
product was labeled and branded ?o as to deceive and mislead the?
purchaser in that the product was labeled and branded as being malt?
coffee, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not malt coffee, but, on?
the contrary, merely roasted malt. Misbranding was alleged for the?
further reason that the packages containing the product bore a state??
ment regarding the substances contained therein which was false and?
misleading in that the package contained the statement that the sub??
stances contained therein was a malt coffee, whereas, in truth and?
in fact, it was not malt coffee, but on the contrary, merely roasted?
malt.
On February 15, 1912, the Kneipp Malt Food Co., claimant, hav??
ing appeared and filed its answer admitting the allegations of the?
libel, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered and it?
was further ordered that, upon payment of all the costs of the pro??
ceedings by said claimant, and the execution of a bond in the sum?
of $100 in conformity with section 10 of the Act, the product should?
be released to said claimant.
JAMES WILSON,?
Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, August ?, 1912.
57362??No. 1727?12