3342.?Misbranding  of  vinegar.    TJ.   S.  v.  25  Barrels,  and 25  Half  Barrels;
and U. S. v. 10 Barrels, and 10 Half Barrels of "Vinegar. Product?
released on bond. (P. & D. No. 4552. I. S. Nos. 3821-e, 3822-e. S. No.?
1512.)
On September 21, 1912, the United States attorney for the Southern District?
of West Virginia, 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 25 barrels and 25 half barrels, and 10 barrels and 10 half?
barrels of vinegar remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at?
Huntington, W. Va., alleging that the product had been transported from the?
State of Ohio into the State of West Virginia, and charging misbranding in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The 25 barrels and 25 half barrels were?
labeled: "Union Vinegar Co., Distributors, Colored Distilled Vinegar 40 Gr.?
Cincinnati, O. Made 2-3-12." The 10 barrels were labeled: " Old Kentucky?
Cider Vinegar Works?O. K.?Fermented Apple Product Vinegar Made by?
Fermentation, Covington, Ky. Fermented Apple Juice Pressed from Apple Waste?
Reduced to Legal Standard with Water." The 10 half barrels were labeled:?
" Old Kentucky Cider Vinegar Works O. K. Brand Fermented Apple Vinegar?
Made by Fermentation, Covington, Ky. Made 8-8-12 Reduced to 40 G. Guar??
anteed to comply with the Pure Food Law."
Misbranding of the 25 barrels and 25 half barrels was alleged in the libel,?
for the reason that said barrels and half barrels were branded as follows:?
That said barrels and each of them were branded and marked to contain the?
following quantities, that is to say, 2 barrels marked 46 gallons, 17 barrels?
marked 47 gallons, and 6 barrels marked 48 gallons, when, in truth and in?
fact, neither [none] of said barrels contained the quantity which was indi??
cated to be therein by the markings, labels, and branding thereon, but each of?
said barrels was substantially short in quantity from [of] the amount indicated?
by the said labels and markings, the total shortage in said 25 barrels being 18?
gallons, or 19.1 per cent; that said half barrels were branded and marked to
550	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTEY.	
[July, 1914.
contain the following quantities, that is to say, each of said half barrels was?
marked to contain 32 gallons, when, in fact and in truth, neither Lnone] of?
said half barrels contained the quantity which was indicated to be therein?
by the markings, labels, and branding thereon, but each of said half barrels?
was substantially short in quantity from [of] the amount indicated by said?
labels and markings, the total shortage in the said 25 half barrels being 11?
gallons, or 16.9 per cent; that the labeling of said barrels and half barrels?
was misleading and false, so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, and was?
a misbranding within the meaning of said act. It was further alleged in the?
libel that each of said 25 barrels and each of said 25 half barrels was sub??
stantially short in quantity from [of] the amount indicated by said labels?
and markings, and said barrels and half barrels did not contain the amount of?
vinegar as [that] the markings would indicate. Misbranding of the 10 bar??
rels and 10 half barrels was alleged for the reason that said barrels were?
branded and marked to contain the following quantities, that is to say, 1?
barrel containing 48 gallons, 4 containing 49 gallons, 1 containing 50 gallons,?
1 containing 51 gallons, 2 containing 52 gallons, and 1 containing 54 gallons,?
when, in truth and in fact, neither [none] of said barrels contained the quan??
tities which were indicated to be therein by the markings, labels, and branding?
thereon, but each of said barrels was substantially short in quantity from [of]?
the amount indicated by said labels and markings, the total shortage in said?
10 barrels being 23 gallons, or 11.5 per cent; that the said half barrels were?
branded and marked to contain the following quantities, that is to say, each?
of said 10 half barrels was marked to contain 32 gallons, when, in truth and in?
fact, neither [none] of said half barrels contained the quantities which were?
indicated to be therein by the markings, labels, and branding thereon, but?
each of said half barrels jvas substantially short in quantity from [of] the?
amount indicated by said labels and marlrings, the total shortage in the said?
10 half barrels being 22 gallons, or 17.2 per cent; that the labeling of said?
barrels and half barrels was misleading and false, so as to deceive and mislead?
the purchaser, and was a misbranding within the meaning of said act. It was?
further alleged in the libel that each of said 10 barrels and 10 half barrels was?
substantially short in quantity from [of] the amount indicated by said labels?
and markings, and said barrels and half barrels did not contain the amount of?
vinegar as [that] the markings would indicate. [The shortage of 18 gallons,?
or 19.1 per cent, was not in the 25 barrels of the product, but in 2 of the 25?
barrels; the shortage of 11 gallons, or 16.9 per cent, was not in the 25 half?
barrels, but in 2 of the 25 half barrels; the shortage of 23 gallons, or 11.5?
per cent, was not in the 10 barrels, but in 4 of the 10 barrels; and the shortage?
of 22 gallons, or 17.2 per cent, was not in the 10 half barrels, but in 4 of the?
10 half barrels.]
On October 9, 1912, the cause having come on for a hearing upon the libel?
and upon the answer of the Union Vinegar Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, claimant,?
it was considered by the court that the product was misbranded within the?
meaning of the Food and Drugs Act and subject to seizure thereunder. The?
said Union Vinegar Co., by its answer having asked that it be allowed to give?
bond on condition that the vinegar should not be sold in violation of the Food?
and Drugs Act and to pay the costs of the proceeding and to have restored to?
it the product, and having tendered a bond for the performance of these condi??
tions, and said bond having been approved, it was considered by the court that?
upon payment of the costs of the proceeding the product should be restored to?
said Union Vinegar Co.
D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 24, 1914-
Supplement]    SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	551