G931. Misbranding- of Wine of Chenstohow. TJ. S. * * * v. 29 Cases of?
"Wine of Chenstohow. Consent decree of condemnation and forfei??
ture. Product ordered released on bond. (F. & D. No. 8868. I, S.?
No. 4432-p.     S.  No.  E-094.)
On March 16, 1918, the United States attorney for the District of New?
Jersey, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district a libel, and on June 24,?
1918, an amended libel, praying the seizure and condemnation of 29 cases,?
each containing 24 packages of Wine of Chenstohow, at Elizabethport, N. J.,?
alleging that the article had been shipped on or about December 26, 1917, by?
A. Skarzynski & Co., Buffalo, N. Y., and transported from the State of New?
York into the State of New Jersey, and charging misbranding iu violation of
N. J. 69Q1-G950]      SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.        409
the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. The article was labeled in part:?
" Celebrated Curative Wine of Chenstohow. Those who suffer with general?
debility, loss of strength or appetite, indigestion, constipation, piles, pains, etc.,?
should use the Curative Wine of Chenstohow    *    *    *."
Analysis of a sample of the product from a previous shipment had shown?
that it consisted essentially of alcohol, extract from a laxative plant drug,?
small amounts of mineral salts, and glycerin, sugar, and water.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance in the amended libel for the?
reason that the statements borne on the labels on the bottles and on the wrappers?
were false and fraudulent in that they represented that the article would pro??
duce certain therapeutic effects as claimed, for it on said labels and wrappers,?
whereas, in truth and in fact, the article would not produce the therapeutic?
effects as claimed in said wrappers and labels.
On December 18, 1918, A. Skarzynski & Co., Buffalo, N. T., claimant, having?
admitted the allegations of the libel and consented to a decree, judgment of?
condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court?
that the product should be released to said claimant upon the payment of the?
costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of $600, in?
conformity with section 10 of the act, conditioned in part that the product?
should be relabeled under the supervision of a representative of this?
department.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.