S147. Adulteration aiul misbrandins: of cane aud maple sirnp. U.S. * * *?
v. 70 Cnus, More or Less, of Sirup. Default decree of condemna??
tion   sind   forfeitui-e.     Product   ordered   sold   by   the   United   States
niarslial.     (F. & D. No. 125G9.    I. S. No. 5200-r.     S. No. W-503.)
On April 5, 1920, the United States attorney for the District of Wyoming,?
ucting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District?
Court of the United States for said disti'ict a libel for the seizure and con??
demnation of 79 cans of an article, labeled in part " Bothwell's Cane and Maple?
Blend Syrup," remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at Rock?
River, Wyo., consigned by the Bothwell Syrup Co., Denver, Colo., alleging that?
the article had been shipped on or about December 19, 1919, and February 7,?
1920, and transported from the State of Colorado into the State of Wyoming,?
and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel in that certain substances,?
to wit, brown sugar and glucose, had been mixed and packed with the article
108	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 03,
so as to reduce ami lower and injuriously, affect its quality and strengtli.?
Further adulteration was alleged in that brown sugar and glucose had been?
substituted wholly or in part for cane and maple sirup.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in that the statement on the label?
on the cans containing the article, regarding the article, to wit, " Botliwell's Cane?
and Maple Blend Syrup," deceived and misled the purchaser in that the state??
ment purported the article to be cane.and maple sirup, whereas, in truth and in?
fact, it was not cane-and maple sirup, but a compound of brown sugar and?
glucose with maple flavor. Misbranding was further alleged in that the article?
was offered'for sale under the distinctive name of another article and was ah?
imitation of that article. Further misbranding was alleged in that the state??
ments on the labels on the cans containing the article, to wit, " one gallon " and?
"one-half gallon," were false and misleading in that they.represented that the?
cans contained 1 gallon and ? gallon of the article, whereas they contained a less?
amount, to wit, 03.4 per cent of 1 gallon and 91 per cent of 1 gallon, respec??
tively.?
On June 14, 1920, no claimant having appeared for the.property, judgment of?
condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that?
the product be sold by the United States marshal in conformity with section?
10 of the act.?
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of .Agriculture.