NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2254.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and  Drugs Act.)
MISBRANDING OF VODKA.
On September 12, 1912, the United States Attorney for the North- 
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 25 cases, 
each containing 20 bottles of vodka, remaining unsold in the original 
unbroken packages and in the possession of the Michigan Central 
Railroad Co., Chicago, Ill., alleging that the product had been 
shipped on August 19, 1912, by S. Shulman, Brooklyn, N. Y., and 
transported from the State of New York into the State of Illinois, 
and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. 
The product was labeled principally in Russian, and also bore the 
following label in English: " Monopole Vodka, Made and Bottled 
in Russian Monopole."
Misbranding of the product was alleged in the libel for the reason 
that it was labeled as aforesaid, and the statement upon the labels 
was false, misleading, and deceptive in that it purported to state 
that the product was a foreign product, manufactured in Russia, 
when, in truth and in fact, it was not manufactured in Russia, but 
in the city of Brooklyn and State of New York, U. S. A., and for 
the further reason that the labels aforesaid bore statements, designs, 
or devices regarding the product which gave it the appearance of 
and purported to state that it was a foreign product, manufactured 
in Russia, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not. manufactured 
in Russia, but was manufactured in the city of Brooklyn, State 
of New York, U. S. A., and-said product was an imitation of the 
liquor or beverage known as vodka, and was offered for sale under
77869°—No. 2254—J.3
the distinctive name of another article of food, liquor, or beverage, 
known as vodka.
On November 14, 1912, the Russian Monopole Co., a corporation, 
Brooklyn, N. Y., claimant, having admitted all the allegations in 
the libel, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, 
and it was further ordered that the product should be released to 
said claimant upon payment of all costs of the proceeding and the 
execution of bond in the sum of $500, in conformity with section 
10 of the Act.
W. M. HAYS, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, January 21', 1913.
2254
o