3065. Adulteration and misbranding of vinegar.   U. S. v. 100 Crates of Vinegar.   Decree of?
condemnation by default.   Product ordered sold.   (F. & D. No. 5132.   S. No. 1756.)
On April 11, 1913, the United States attorney for the Western District of Missouri,?
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 100 crates,?
each containing 24 bottles of so-called "cane sugar vinegar, " remaining unsold in the?
original unbroken packages and in the possession of Ed Haas, Neosho, Mo., alleging-?
that the product had been shipped on or about October 25,1912, by the Southern Fruit?
Products Co., formerly Jones Bros. & Co., Rogers, Ark., and transported from the State?
of Arkansas into the State of Missouri, charging adulteration and misbranding in vio??
lation of the Food and Drugs Act. The product was labeled: "Star Brand Cane Sugar?
Vinegar Bottled by Jones Bros, and Co.    Rogers, Ark., manufacturers. "
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the libel for the reason that the label?
thereon indicated that it was a cane sugar vinegar, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was?
a distilled vinegar and dilute acetic acid had been mixed and packed therewith and1,?
substituted for cane sugar vinegar, and it was further adulterated in that distilled?
vinegar and dilute acetic acid had been mixed and packed with and substituted f orcane?
sugar vinegar so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength.?
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the label upon the product deceived and?
misled purchasers thereof into the belief that it was a cane sugar vinegar, whereas, in?
truth and in fact, it was a distilled vinegar and dilute acetic acid had been mixed and?
packed with and substituted for cane sugar vinegar, and it was further misbranded?
in that it was an imitation of and offered for sale under the distinctive name of "cane?
sugar vinegar," whereas, in truth and in fact, it was a distilled vinegar and dilute?
acetic acid had been mixed and packed with and substituted for genuine cane sugar?
vinegar, and it was further misbranded in that the label thereon was false and mislead??
ing in that the product was not a cane sugar vinegar but was a distilled vinegar and?
dilute acetic acid had been mixed and packed with and substituted for cane sugar?
vinegar.
286	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[April, 1914.
On June 10, 1913, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment of con??
demnation and forfeiture was entered and it was ordered by the court that the product?
should be sold by the United States marshal.
(It is not the view of this department that both distilled vinegar and dilute acetic?
acid had been mixed and packed with cane sugar vinegar, the product in question.)
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, May 6, 1914-