NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2449.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
U. S. v. 15 Cases of Brandy.   Decree of condemnation by consent.   Product
released on bond.
MISBRANDING OF BRANDY.
On January 8 and January 13, 1913, the United States Attorney 
for the District of Minnesota, acting upon a report by the Secretary 
of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for 
said district libels for the seizure and condemnation of 15 cases, each 
containing 12 bottles of brandy, remaining unsold in the original 
packages, 10 cases of which were in possession of Barrett & Barrett, 
a corporation, St. Paul, Minn., and 5 cases of which were in posses- 
sion of W. A. Bergen & Co., St. Paul, Minn., alleging that the 10 
cases of the product had been shipped on November 26, 1912, and 
the 5 cases on December 16, 1912, by the Francis Cropper Co., Chi- 
cago, Ill., and transported from the State of Illinois into the State 
of Minnesota, and charging misbranding in violation of the Food 
and Drugs Act. The 10 cases of the product were labeled: " 1 Doz. 
Fives.—A. Blanchard Fils & Cure Brand Brandy—70360—Soo Line— 
St. Paul—11-29. Barrett & Barrett, St. Paul, Minn." The bottles 
in the cases were labeled: " BSB—Blanchard Sons Brand Cognac 
Type Brandy—Compound—Guaranteed by The Francis Cropper 
Co., Chicago, under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906." The 
5 cases were labeled: " 1 Doz. Fives—A. Blanchard Fils & Co Brand 
Brandy—8708—C. M. & St. P.—St. Paul—12-17-12. W. A. Bergen, 
St. Paul, Minn.," and the bottles in the 5 cases were labeled : " BSB— 
Blanchard Sons Brand Cognac Type Brandy—Compound—Guar- 
anteed by The Francis Cropper Co., Chicago, under the Food and 
Drugs Act, June 30, 1906 -" On crescent shaped label on neck of 
all bottles was a pictorial device representing three bunches of 
grapes, and the bottle was partially encased in network of raffia,
96087?--No. 2449-13
Misbranding of the product was alleged in the libels for the rea- 
son that it was an imitation of and offered for sale under the distinc- 
tive name of another article, to wit, genuine cognac or brandy, and 
was further misbranded by reason of the fact that it was labeled and 
branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser by purporting 
lo be genuine cognac or brandy, when, in truth and in fact, it con- 
sisted largely of neutral spirits derived from sources other than 
grapes, which neutral spirits had been artificially colored, flavored, 
and prepared so as to imitate genuine cognac or brandy, the impres- 
sion created by the general physical appearance of the retail units 
and resulting from the wording of said labels and brands not being 
corrected by the words " Type " and " Compound " which appeared 
on the labels and brands inconspicuously as compared with the words 
" Cognac " and " Brandy," and the product was further misbranded 
in that by the words "A. Blanchard Fils and die " appearing on the' 
labels and brands on the cases, combined with the general appear- 
ance of imported goods given to the retail units by the network of 
raffia partially covering the bottles, the said product purported to be 
a foreign product when such was not the case, and it was further mis- 
branded in that the pictorial device representing three bunches of 
grapes and the statements " Cognac " and " Brandy " appearing on 
the labels were false and misleading in that by said pictorial device 
and statements the product was represented and purported to be 
genuine cognac or brandy which had been produced from grapes, 
when, in truth and in fact, it consisted largely of neutral spirits 
derived from sources other than grapes, which neutral spirits had 
been artificially colored, flavored, and prepared so as to imitate 
genuine cognac or brandy.
On January 31, 1913, the said Francis Cropper Co., claimant, 
having consented to the rendition of decrees, judgments of condemna- 
tion and forfeiture were entered, and it was further ordered that 
the product should be released and delivered to said claimant upon 
payment of all costs of the proceedings, amounting to $32.04, and the 
execution of bond in the sum of $100, in conformity with section 10 
of the Act.
WILLIS L. MOORE, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C.5 March 3,1913.
2449
o