3164.  Adulteration  and   misbranding1  of  wine.   U.  S.  v.   13  Oases   of Wine.?
Default decree of forfeiture, condemnation, and. destruction.    (F. & D.
No. 5305.    S. No. 1899.)
On August 15, 1913, the United States Attorney for the Eastern 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 13 cases, each containing 12 bottles of wine, remaining unsold?
in the original unbroken packages and in possession of the Rendlen Liquor Co.,?
Hannibal, Mo., alleging that the product had been shipped on or about April?
11, 1913, and transported from the State of Ohio into the State of Missouri,?
and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs?
Act. The product was labeled: (On cases) " Scuppernong Bouquet Delaware?
Scuppernong Blend." (On bottles) " Scuppernong Bouquet Wine?Delaware?
and Scuppernong Blend ameliorated with sugar solution (Trade-mark regis??
tered) The Sweet Valley Wine Co.. Sandusky, Ohio." (Neck label) "Serial?
No. 124 Guaranteed by The Sweet Valley Wine Co. Serial No. 124?Under?
the Food and Drugs Act   June 30, 1906."
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the libel for the reason that it?
was not Scuppernong wine as said labels state and indicate, but, on the con??
trary thereof, a substance consisting wholly or in part of a mixture or base of?
wines which had been sweetened, flavored, and mixed in imitation of Scupper??
nong wine had been mixed and packed with the product so as to reduce, lower,?
and injuriously affect its quality and strength; and, further, in that a certain?
substance, consisting wholly or in large part of a mixture or base of wines,
366	
BUBEAU OP  CHEMISTRY.	
[May, 1914.
which had been sweetened, flavored, and mixed in imitation of Scuppernong?
wine, had been substituted wholly or in part for Scuppernong wine. Mis??
branding was alleged for the reason that said product consisted wholly or in?
large part of a mixture or base of wines which had been sweetened, flavored,?
and mixed in imitation of Scuppernong wine, contained practically no Scupper??
nong wine, and said product was an imitation of and offered for sale under the?
distinctive name of another article, to wit, Scuppernong wine; and, further, in?
that the labels on the cases and bottles, to wit, " Scuppernong Bouquet," would?
deceive and mislead the purchaser thereof into the belief that the product was?
Scuppernong wine, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not Scuppernong wine,?
but was a mixture of other wines; and, further, in that said labels were de??
scriptive of the substance contained in said bottles and cases, and were false?
and misleading in that said product was not Scuppernong wine.
On December 3, 1913, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg??
ment 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, 1914.