S39S. Adnltex'atloii and miKux'n-iidins' of evaporated up pies. U. S. * * *?
v. Sf> Boxes, More or 1-esn, of Alleged Evaporated Apples labeled?
in Part, " 5f> Pounds .Sunset Brand Evaporated or Dried Product?
of Apples Prepared wittx Salphiix* Fumes New Crop Fivultless?
Blending' of American Apples, J. W. Teasdale & Co." Consent de??
cree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product released on bond.?
(F. ?& D.  No. 12250.    I.  S.  No.  1062C-r.     S. No.  C-179'2.)
On or about March 2, 1920, the United States attorney for the Eastern Dis??
trict of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in?
the District Court of the United States for said district a libel for
 the seizure?
and condemnation of a certain quantity of alleged evaporated apples, at Dan??
ville, 111., consigned by J. W. Teasdale & Co., St. Louis, Mo., alleging that the?
article had been shipped on or about January 13, 1920, and transported from the?
State of Missouri into the State of Illinois, and charging adulteration and mis??
branding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in?
part, " Sunset Brand Evaporated or Dried Product of Apples."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it contained an excessive quantity of water.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel in that, an excessive amount?
of water had been mixed with, and substituted wholly or in part for, evapo??
rated apples, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in that the statement on the label on?
the box containing the article, " Sunset Brand Evaporated or Dried Apples,"?
was false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser, into the belief?
that the article was evaporated or dried apples, whereas it was not, and for the?
further reason that the article was offered for sale under the distinctive name?
of another article.
On June 30, 1920, J. W. Teasdale & Co., claimant, having consented to the?
entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and
N. J. 8a.jl-S-100]      SERVICE  AND  REGULATORY  ANNOUNCEMENTS.	263
it was ordered by the court Hint the product be delivered to the claimant upon?
the payment of the costs of the proceedings and the tiling of a bond in the sum?
of $1,000, in conformity with section 10 of the act.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.