3168. Adulteration and misbranding of muscatel wine. t.T. S. v. 1 Barrel?
of Muscatel Wine. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, arid?
destruction.     (F. & D. No. 5514.    S. Ttfo. 1902.)
On August 15, 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 a libel for the seizure?
and condemnation of 1 barrel of muscatel wine, remaining unsold in the original?
unbroken package and in the possession of S. Pacifico, Detroit, Mich., alleging?
that the product had been shipped on August 1, 1913, by A. Textor & Co., San??
dusky, Ohio, and transported from the State of Ohio into the State of Michigan,?
and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs?
Act. The product was labeled: jOn barrel) "A. Textor and Co., Sandusky,?
Ohio, Muscatel Wine. No. 5425 guaranteed under the Food & Drugs Act of?
June 30, 1906."    (On shipping tag)  " S. Pacifico, Biopelle Street, Detroit."
It was alleged in the libel that the product was misbranded in violation of?
section 8, first general paragraph, and also in violation of paragraph 2 of?
said section 8 of the Food and Drugs Act, under the classification of " Food,"?
and further that it was adulterated in violation of section 7 of the Food and?
Drugs Act, under the classification of " Food" in said act, and in violation?
of paragraphs 1 and 2 of said section 7, an examination of samples of the product?
by the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture having revealed?
that said product was imitation muscatel wine and contained alcohol, 18 per?
cent by volume; solids, 5.1 grams per 100 cc; reducing sugars as invert before?
inyersion, 3.9 grams per 100 cc, after inversion, 3.9 grams per 100 cc; sac??
charin, 0.01 gram per 100 cc; the analysis showing that there had been?
added or substituted for muscatel wine a product containing a small amount?
of sugar, which had been artificially sweetened in imitation of muscatel type?
of wine; that it contained saccharin that had been substituted wholly or in?
part for sugar. It was also alleged in the libel that the barrel of wine, by the?
label contained thereon, was labeled and printed so as to deceive and mislead?
the purchaser thereof, and said product had
' been adulterated in that a substi??
tution had been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce and lower and?
injuriously affect its strength and quality and that a substance had been?
substituted in part for the article, an analysis disclosing the fact that the?
product was an imitation of muscatel wine as aforesaid, said misbranding,?
labeling, and adulterating constituting a violation within the meaning of said?
act of June 30, 1906.
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. C, May 6, 1914.
Supplement.]    SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	369