3092.?Adulteration and misbranding of strawberry flavor. U. S. v. Maury-Cole Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25 and costs. (F. & D. No. 5199. I. S. No. 1247-e.) On August 11, 1913, the United States attorney for the Western District of Ten?? nessee, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District? Court of the United States for said District an information against the Maury-Cole? Co., a corporation, Memphis, Tenn., alleging the sale under a guarantee by said? company for shipment in interstate commerce, in violation of the Food and Drugs? Act, on or about August 1, 1912, of a quantity of strawberry flavor which was adulter?? ated and misbranded. The information further alleged that the purchaser of the? product afterward shipped the same in the original unbroken packages from the? State of Tennessee into the State of Arkansas. The product was labeled (on cartons):? "Choctaw Brand, Flavoring, Strawberry. (Guaranty Legend.) Serial No. 1126.? Put up by Maury-Cole Co., Memphis, Tenn. Formula on bottle," and on the flaps? of said carton, the words: "Choctaw Brand, Strawberry" (on bottles) "Choctaw? Brand. Imitation Flavoring, Strawberry. Manufactured and guaranteed by Maury-? Cole Co., Memphis, Tenn. Serial No. 1126. Harmless coloring." Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that a? substance to wit, an imitation of strawberry flavor, had been mixed and packed with? said article of food in such manner as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its? quality and strength, and for the further reason that a substance, to wit, an imitation? strawberry flavor, had been substituted in whole or in part for the genuine article,? and for the further reason that it was colored in, a manner whereby its inferiority was? concealed. Misbranding was alleged in the libel for the reason that the statement? "Flavoring Strawberry," borne on the carton, and the statement "Strawberry,"? borne on the bottle, were false and misleading because they conveyed the impression? that the product was a genuine strawberry flavor, whereas, in truth and in fact, it? was not a genuine strawberry flavor, but an imitation of strawberry flavor, the word? "Imitation" which appeared inconspicuously on the label on the bottle being insuf?? ficient to correct the false impression conveyed by the statements "Flavoring of? Strawberry" and "Strawberry." On November 13, 1913, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the? information and the court imposed a fine of $25, with costs of $15.85. B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. WASHINGTON, D. C, April 14, 1914-