4059. Adulteration and misbranding of wine. U.S. * * * v. 3 Barrels * * * 3 Barrels?
. * * and 2 Barrels * * * of so-called Scuppernong Wine. Default decrees of?
condemnation and forfeiture. Product ordered sold. (F. & D. Nos. 5306, 5307, 5308.?
I. S. Nos. S02-h, S04-h,807-h.   S. No. 1S94.)
On August 14, 1913, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Texas,?
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 3 barrels?
containing 216 bottles, 2 barrels containing 240 bottles, and 2 barrels containing 144?
bottles of so-called scuppernong wine, remaining unsold in the original unbroken?
packages at Dallas, Tex., alleging that the 3 barrels had been shipped June 3, 1913,?
2 barrels, December 20, 1912, and the other 2 barrels, June 6, 1913, and transported?
from the State of Ohio into the State of Texas, and charging adulteration and misbrand??
ing in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. Two of the 3 barrels first referred to?
were labeled: "Glass with care wine 72 bottles." The other barrel was labeled:?
"Glass with care. Special Scuppernong Bouquet." The 2 barrels containing 240?
bottles of wine were labeled: "Wine glass with care 120 bottles." The 2 barrels?
containing 144 bottles of wine were labeled: "Glass with care wine 72 bottles." The?
bottles containing the product were variously labeled in part: "Scuppernong Bouquet?
wine Delaware and Scuppernong Blend Ameliorated with Sugar Solution," or" Scup??
pernong Bouquet special wine Belle of the Valley Delaware and Scuppernong Blend?
Ameliorated with sugar solution," or "Scuppernong Bouquet" Delaware and Scup??
pernong Blend Ameliorated with sugar solution wine."
The allegations in the libels were to the effect that the, article was adulterated for?
the reason that a substance, to wit, an imitation product made in whole, or in part?
from another wine or wines or base wine sweetened and mixed in imitation of scup??
pernong wine, had been mixed and packed with said article so as to reduce, or lower,?
or injuriously affect its quality or strength, and for the further reason that a substance,?
to wit, said imitation product, had been substituted wholly or in part for scuppernong :?
wine.: The allegations in the libels as to misbranding were to the effect that the?
labels
 of the article bore the aforesaid statements regarding the article or the ingre??
dients or substances contained therein, which said statements were false and mis??
leading in that they conveyed the impression that the article was scuppernong wine,?
whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not scuppernong wine, but was a product made?
in whole or in part from another wine or wines or base wine sweetened and mixed?
in imitation of Bcuppernong wine; and for the further reason that said statements?
would deceive or mislead the purchaser into believing that the article was scupper??
nong wine, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not but was an imitation thereof.
On March 5, 1914, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgments of?
condemnation and forfeiture were entered, and it was ordered by the court that said?
property should be sold by the United States marshal, according to the statutes and?
practice in admiralty proceedings.
CARL VROOSIAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D, C, December 4, 1915,
N.-J.4051-4100.]    SERVICE  AND REGULATORY  ANNOUNCEMENTS.	81"