10024. Adulteration and misbranding of port hot, port hot cherry, apple,?
orange, port hot Clico, port hot apple, and blackberry punch bev??
erages. U. S. * * * v. One Keg of Port Hot, et al. Default?
decrees finding products adultex-ated and misbranded and order??
ing their destruction. (F. & D. Nos. 14459, 14460, 14461, 14462. Inv.?
Nos. 27405, 27406, 27407, 27408, 27409, 27412, 27415, 27416. S. Nos. C-2719,?
O-2720, 0-2721, C-2722, C-2723.)
On February 19, 1921, the United States attorney for the Western District?
of Arkansas, 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 2 kegs of port hot, 1 keg of port hot cherry, 1 keg of apple,?
1 keg of orange, 1 keg of port hot Clico, 1 keg of port hot apple, and 1 barrel of
12	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplemental,
blackberry punch beverages, at Fort Smith, Winslow, Booneville, and Ohism-?
ville, Ark., respectively, and on March 1, 1921, an amended libel was filed with?
respect to a portion thereof, which libels and amended libel alleged that the?
blackberry punch had been shipped by the Grown Beverage Go., St. Louis, Mo.,?
and that the remainder of the articles had been shipped! by the Arlette Fruit?
Products Co., St. Louis, Mo., on or about November 20 and December 2, 6, and?
11, 1920, respectively, and transported from the State of Missouri into the?
State of Arkansas, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of?
the Food and Drugs Act, as amended.
Adulteration of the articles was alleged in substance in the libels for the?
reason that they were artificially colored mixtures of sucrose, invert sugar,?
and saccharin and water, preserved with benzoate of soda, which was not de??
clared on the labels, and that certain of the said articles, to wit, port hot and?
port hot Glico, contained capsicum and an imitation wine flavor. Adulteration?
was alleged in substance for the further reason that the articles were mixed?
and colored in a manner whereby damage or inferiority was concealed and?
for the further reason that they contained an added poisonous and deleterious?
material, saccharin, which might render them injurious to health.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that certain statements?
on the labels of the respective kegs or barrel containing the said articles, to wit,?
" Port Hot," " Cherry," " Orange Sweet," " Port Hot Glico," " Blackberry Punch,"?
Tand "Apple"] and "Guarantee the Contents of this Package to Comply with?
all Laws," were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser;?
for the further reason that the said articles were imitations of, and were?
offered for sale under the distinctive names of, other articles; and for the?
further reason that the quantity and contents of the said articles were not?
plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the packages.
On August 11, 1921, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgments?
of the court were entered finding the products to be adulterated and misbranded?
and ordering their destruction by the United States marshal.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.