3971. Misbranding of wine.   U. S. v. 25 Cases of Wine.   Decree of condemnation by default.?
Product ordered destroyed.   (F. & D. No. 4791.   S. No. 1575.)
On November 13,1912, the United States attorney for the Eastern 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 12 bottles of wine, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages
38782?14?6
190	
BUREAU  OP  CHEMISTRY.	
[March,
and in possession of the W. II. Dirden Liquor Co., East St. Louis, 111., alleging that?
the product had been shipped on or about October 4, 1912, and transported in inter??
state commerce from the State of Ohio into the State of Illinois, and charging mis??
branding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The product was labeled: " Special?
Scuppernong Bouquet Delaware and Scuppernong Blend Ameliorated with Sugar.?
12 bottles W. H. Dirden Liq. Co., East St. Louis, 111.," on cases, and "Guaranteed?
by the Sweet Valley Wine Co., under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30,1906. Special?
S. V. W. Co. Trade Mark," on the neck of each bottle, and "Special Wine Belle?
of the Valley Scuppernong Bouquet Delaware and Scuppernong Blend Ameliorated?
with Sugar Solution.   Trade Mark S. V. W. Co.," as the main label on each bottle.
Misbranding of the product was alleged in the libel for the reason that it consisted?
wholly or iD large part of a mixture of pomace and other wines, and contained prac??
tically no Scuppernong wine, and the labels on the cases and bottles, to wit, " Special?
Scuppernong Bouquet" and "Special Wine * * Scuppernong Bouquet," would?
deceive and mislead the purchaser thereof into the belief that said wine was a Scup??
pernong wine, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was a mixture of pomace and other?
wines, and for the further reason that the word " Scuppernong," so upon said labels?
as aforesaid, was printed in much larger type than that used for other words of said?
labels.
On May 23, 1913, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment of con??
demnation and forfeiture was entered, the 'court finding that the product had been?
shipped by the Sweet Valley Wine Co., Sandusky, Ohio, and it was ordered that said?
product should be destroyed by the United States marshal.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, March 30, 19H.