S!>38.  Adulteration   and   misbranding'   of   nonalcoholic   beverages.      U.    S.
*?*     *    v. 2 Kess of. Nonalcoholic Beverages, One Purporting: to be?
Port Hot Cordial Flavor and the Other Blackberry Coi-dial Flavor
*?*     *.    Default decree  of condemnation, forfeitnx-e, and destruc??
tion.     (F. & D. No., 13847.    I. S. No. 84312-t.    S. No. E-2S61.)
On November 4, 1920, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland,?
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 2 kegs of nonalcoholic beverages, one purporting to be port hot cordial?
flavor and the other blackberry cordial flavor, being labeled in part, " Non??
alcoholic Artificial Flavor and Color Port Hot Cordial Flavor" (or "Black??
berry Cordial Flavor") "sweetened with saccharine * * * Arlette Fruit?
Products Co., St. Louis, Mo.," remaining in the original unbroken packages at?
Bel Air, Md., alleging that the article had .been shipped by the Arlette Fruit?
Products Co., St. Louis, Mo., and transported from the State of Missouri into?
the State of Maryland, 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?
substance which has no food value, to wit, saccharin, had been mixed and?
packed with, and substituted wholly or in part for, said articles. Adulteration?
was alleged for the further reason that said articles contained an added poi??
sonous and deleterious ingredient, saccharin, which might render the same?
injurious to health.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the package or label of the?
articles bore the statements regarding said articles or the ingredients or sub-
N. J. 8901-8930.]	SERVICE  AND  REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.      307
stances contained therein, to wit. " Non-alcoholic Port Hot Cordial Flavor,'' or?
" Non-alcoholic Blackberry Cordial Flavor,"' which were false and misleading?
and deceived the purchaser. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason?
that the article in each case was an imitation of, and was offered for sale under?
the distinctive name of, another article.
On December 18, 1920, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg??
ment 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, Act tug Secretary of Agriculture.