3120.  Adulteration and misbranding of Trine.     V. S. v. 8 Barrels of "Wine.?
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.    (F. & D.
No. 5261.    S. No. 1843.)
On June 20, 1913. the United States Attorney for the Western District of?
Pennsylvania, 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 8 barrels, purporting and represented to contain Ohio?
port wine, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at 305 Scot??
land Street, Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that the product had been shipped on or?
about May 28, 1913, by the Kelley's Island Wine Co., Kelley's Island, Ohio,?
and transported from the State of Ohio into the State of Pennsylvania, and
Supplement]    SEEVICE AND BEGULATOBY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	343
charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs?
Act. The barrels were labeled: (On one end) "Parker Brown Co., Allegheny,?
Pa."; (On the other end) "Sweet Pomace Wine (Gauge) Ohio Port Wine?
Guaranteed Under National Pure Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906, Kelley's?
Island Wine Company, Kelley's Island, Ohio".
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the libel for the reason that a sub??
stance
 to wit, an imitation product prepared in part from starch sugar, had?
been substituted wholly or in part for port wine. Misbranding was alleged?
for the reason that the product was offered for sale under the distinctive?
name of port wine, whereas, in fact, it was not port wine but an imitation?
product prepared wholly or in part from starch sugar and in imitation of port?
wine, and for the further reason that it was labeled and branded so as to?
deceive and mislead the purchaser, that is to say, was branded and labeled as?
port wine, whereas, in fact, it was not port wine but an imitation product?
prepared wholly or in part from starch sugar and in imitation of port wine;?
and for the further reason that it was offered for sale purporting to be a for??
eign product, that is to say, the words " port wine " were in large black type?
on the head of each barrel, and standing apart from the rest of the label near?
the upper part on each barrel head, and remote from the words " port wine,"?
in materially reduced type, was the single word " Ohio," the effect of the label?
being to indicate that the product offered for sale was " port wine," a wine man??
ufactured in southwestern Europe, whereas, in fact, said wine was manufac??
tured in the State of Ohio in the United States of America. Misbranding was?
alleged for the further reason that the packages containing the product and?
their labels bore respectively a statement regarding the substances contained?
therein, which was false and misleading, to wit, by the label on each of said?
barrels the substance contained therein purported to be " port wine," whereas,?
in fact, the substance contained in each of said barrels was not " port wine,"?
which is the fermented juice pressed from entire, sound, ripe grapes, but was?
an imitation product, prepared wholly or in part from starch sugar and in imi??
tation  of port wine.
On July 30, 1913, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment?
of condemnation and forfeiture was entered and it was ordered by the court?
that the product should be destroyed by the United States marshal.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, May 21, 1914.