3364.?Adulteration   and   misbranding   of   simp   of   tamarinds.     tJ.   S.   v.   5
Cases, More or Less, of Simp of Tamarinds. Default decree of con??
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (E\ & D. No. 5451. I. S. No.?
4895-h.    S.  No.  2024.)
On November 29, 1913, the United States attorney for the Southern District?
of Ohio, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and?
condemnation of 5 cases, each containing 12 bottles of sirup of tamarinds, re??
maining unsold in the original unbroken packages at Steubenville, Ohio, alleg??
ing that the product had been transported from the State of New York into?
the State of Ohio, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of?
the Food and Drugs Act. The shipping cases were labeled: " Guaranteed by?
W. P. Bernagozzi under Food and Drugs Act June 30, 1906?Serial No. 4438??
New York?12 Bottles Tamarindo Bernag Brand?12 Bottles 5's?Fragile??
P. Monti?Steubenville, Ohio." The bottles were labeled: " Syrup of Tarn'?
arinds?A compound?Guaranteed under Food and Drugs Act June 30, 1906??
Serial No. 4438?Trade Mark; " "A Compound?-Artificially colored Made in?
New York?Guaranteed by W. P. Bernagozzi under the Pure Food and Drugs?
Act, June 30th, 1906,?Serial No. 4438?Liquid Contents twenty-six ounces."
It was alleged in the libel that the article of food was adulterated in the?
following particulars, to wit: First, that a certain substance, consisting of a?
sugar solution acidified with tartaric acid and artificially colored with burnt?
sugar or caramel, had been mixed and packed with said article of food so as?
to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength. Second,?
that a certain substance, to wit, a sugar solution acidified with tartaric acid?
and artificially colored with burnt sugar or caramel, had been substituted for?
said article of food so purporting by its label to be sirup of tamarinds. Third,?
that said article of food was colored with burnt sugar or caramel in a manner?
whereby its inferiority was concealed. It was further alleged in the libel that?
the article of food was misbranded in the following particulars: First, that the?
label of said article of food bore a statement regarding the article and the?
ingredients and substances contained therein, which said statement, to wit,?
" Syrup of Tamarinds," was false, misleading, and deceptive in that it repre??
sented said article of food to be sirup of tamarinds, when, in truth and in fact,?
said article of food was not sirup of tamarinds, but an imitation thereof. Sec??
ond, that said article of food was not sirup of tamarinds; that it was an imi??
tation of sirup of tamarinds; and that it was offered for sale under the dis??
tinctive name of an article of food known and designated as sirup of tamarinds,?
when, in truth and in fact, it was another and different article. Third, that?
said article of food was labeled and branded as aforesaid so as to deceive and?
mislead the purchaser thereof in that by its said label it was purported and?
lepresented to be sirup of tamarinds, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not?
sirup of tamarinds, and was wholly an imitation thereof.
On March 17, 1914, 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.
D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 24, 1914.