S667. Adulteration, RJH! misbranding- of Munim's Cliampagne, U. S. * * *?
v. 26 Cases ol" M mum's Champagne. Default decree of coudemna-?
lion, forfeiture, am! destruction. (F. & D. No. 12909. I. S. Nos.?
14662-r, 14663-r.    S. No. B-2343.)
On June 15, 1920, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of?
Pennsylvania, 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 26 cases of Munim's Champagne, consigned by H. G. Murom &?
Co., New York, N. Y., remaining in the original unbroken packages at Phila??
delphia, Pa., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about March 1G,?
1920, and transported from the State of New York into the State of Pennsyl??
vania, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and?
Drugs Act.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that a sub??
stance other than unfermented nonalcoholic champagne had been mixed and?
packed with, and substituted wholly or in part for, the article.
Misbranding was alleged in substance in the libel for the reason that the?
package in which the article was enclosed contained a label which bore the fol??
lowing statement, regarding the article and the ingredients and substances?
contained therein, " H. G. Mumm & Co.'s Jtlxtra Dry Champagne Non-alcoholic,"?
which was false and misleading in that the product was a mixture prepared?
from grape and apple juices, sweeteried with sugar, artificially flavored and?
artificially carbonated. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that?
it was an imitation of, and was offered for sale under the distinctive name or",?
another article, and for the further reason that it was food in package form,?
and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on?
the outside of the package.
On August 2, 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 destroyed by the United States marshal,
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.