9282.  Adulteration  and  Misbranding of Extra Dry  Champagne  and  Spar- 
kling:  Burgundy.     U.   S.     *     *      * '   v.   5   Cases   of  Extra  Cry  Chain- 
pagne     *     *      *     and    5    Cases    of    Sparkling    Burgundy     *      *      * 
Default    decrees    of    condemnation,    forfeiture,    and    destruction.
(F. & D. No. 13779.    I. S. Nos.
' 12705-t, 12706-t.     S. No'. C-2554.)
On October 30, 1920, the United States attorney for the Middle District of 
Tennessee, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district libels for the seizure and 
condemnation of 5 cases of Extra Dry Champagne and 5 cases of Sparkling Bur- 
gundy, respectively, remaining in the original unbroken cases at Nashville, 
Tenn., alleging that the articles had been shipped by H. G. Mumm & Co., New 
York, N. Y\, on or about June 19, 1920, and transported from the State of New 
York into the State of Tennessee, and charging adulteration and misbranding 
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. The articles were labeled 
in part, respectively: " H. G. Mumm & Co. Extra Dry Champagne Non-Alcoholic 
H. G. Mumm & Co. Distributors American Importation Bordeaux France, New 
York, Chicago;" " H. G. Mumm & Co. Sparkling Burgundy Non-Alcoholic 
P. J. De Centaur Bordeaux, France, H. G. Mumm & Co. New York and Chicago."
Adulteration of the articles was alleged in the libels for the reason that 
an artificially carbonated imitation wine had been mixed and packed with and 
substituted wholly for the articles. Adulteration of the Sparkling Burgundy 
was alleged for the further reason that it was colored in a manner whereby 
damage or inferiority was concealed.
Misbranding was. alleged for the reason that the packages or labels bore the 
statements, " H, G. Mumm & Co. Extra Dry Champagne," or " H. G. Mumm & 
Co. Sparkling Burgundy," as the case might be, which statements were false 
and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser, for the further reason 
that the articles were imitations of, and were offered for sale under the dis- 
tinctive names of, other articles, and for the further reason that the articles 
were food in package form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and 
conspicuously marked on the outside of the packages.
On February 18 and March 2, 1921, respectively, no claimant having appeared 
for the property, judgments of condemnation and forfeiture were entered, 
and it was ordered by the court that the products be destroyed by the United 
States marshal.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.