5422. Adulteration and misbranding of vinegar. TJ„ g„ * * * v. 40 Bar- 
rels of Vinegar. Consent decree of eoadessiiiatien and forfeiture. 
Product ordered released II bond. (F. & D. Nos. 7978, 7979. I. S. 
Nos. 3717-m, 3723-m, 3724-m.    S. No. E-791.)
On January 15, 1917, the United States attorney for the District of Massa mu- 
setts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District 
Court of the United States for said district a libel of information praying the 
seizure and condemnation of 40 barrels of vinegar, consigned on December 1, 
1916, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at Fall River and 
New Bedford, Mass., alleging that the article had been shipped by Swift & Co., 
from Providence, R. I., and transported from the State of Rhode Island into 
the State of Massachusetts, and charging adulteration and misbranding in vio- 
lation of the Food and Drugs Act.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel of information for the 
reason that a substance, to wit, vinegar made from dried apple products, had 
been mixed and packed with said article so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously 
affect its quality and strength, and had been substituted in part for said article.
It was charged in substance in the libel of information that the article was 
misbranded for the reason that the statement on the label, to wit, " Pure Apple 
Cider Vinegar," was false and misleading in that the article was not pure apple 
cider vinegar; and for the further reason that the article was labeled as afore- 
said so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser [into the belief that it was 
pure apple cider vinegar], whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not. Misbrand- 
ing was alleged for the further reason that the article was an imitation of and 
offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, pure apple 
cider vinegar, when in fact it was not.
On March 12, 1917, the Security Trust Co., a corporation, Detroit, Mich., 
receiver of the Williams Brothers Co., claimant, having filed an answer, judg- 
ment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the 
court that the product be delivered to said claimant upon the payment of the 
costs of the proceedings, a satisfactory bond having been filed by it, in con- 
formity with section 10 of the act.
GAEL VROOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.