3160. Adulteration, and misbranding' of Scuppernong wine. V. S. v. 8 Bar??
rels of Bottled Scuppernong Wine and 3 Barrels of Scuppernong?
Wine. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruc??
tion.    (F. & D. No. 5300.    S. No. 1892.)
On August 13, 1913, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of?
Michigan, 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 8 barrels, each containing 6 dozen bottles of so-called?
Scuppernong wine, and 3 barrels of so-called Scuppernong wine, remaining?
unsold in the original unbroken packages and in possession of the Old Kentucky?
Whiskey Co., Detroit, Mich., alleging that the product had been shipped on?
July 24, 1913, by the Sweet Valley Wine Co., Sandusky, Ohio, and trans??
ported from the State of Ohio into the State of Michigan, and charging?
adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The?
bottled goods were labeled: (On barrels) "Wine?Glass with care?Old Ken??
tucky Whiskey Co. Detroit, Mich." (On bottles, neck label) " Serial No. 124?
Guaranteed by The Sweet Valley Wine Company under the Food and Drugs?
Act, June 30, 1906." (Principal label) "Scuppernong Bouquet Wine, Dela??
ware and Scuppernong Blend Ameliorated with Sugar Solution?The Sweet?
Valley Wine Co., Sandusky, Ohio." The wine in bulk was labeled: (On one?
end of barrels) "A Ohio Scuppernong Wine?Guaranteed by the Sweet Valley?
Wine Co. under Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906." (On other end of barrels)?
" Old Kentucky Whiskey Co., Detroit, Mich."
It was alleged in the libels that the products were adulterated in viola??
tion of section 7 of the Food and Drugs Act and of paragraphs 1 and 2, under?
" Food " of said act, an examination of samples of the products by the Bureau?
of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture having revealed that the?
products were imitation Scuppernong wines, made in whole or in part from?
another wine or. wines, or base wine, sweetened and mixed in imitation of?
Scuppernong wine. It was also alleged that the products were misbranded?
in violation of paragraph 1 of section 8 of the Food and Drugs Act under the?
classification of "Food," for the reason that the barrels of so-called wine by
Supplement.]    SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	363
the labels contained thereon were labeled and printed so as to deceive and mis??
lead the purchaser thereof, and said products were adulterated in that a sub??
stitution had been mixed and packed with them so as to reduce and lower?
and injuriously affect their quality and strength, and that a substance had?
been substituted in part for the articles, and an analysis of samples disclosing?
the fact that the products were imitations of Scuppernong wine, made in whole?
or in part from another wine or wines, or base wine, sweetened or mixed in?
imitation of Scuppernong wine.?
On October 6, 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. 0., May 6, 19lJf.