10277.?Adulteration  and misbranding of extract of lemon.    U.  S.     *     *     *
v. 40 Bottles * * * of Extract of Lemon * * *. Default?
decree of condemnation, forfeitnre, and destruction.     (F. & D. No.
15656.    I. S. No. 5509-t.    S. No. E-3733.)
On January 22, 1922, the United States attorney for the District of Mas??
sachusetts, 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 40 bottles of extract of lemon, remaining unsold in the?
original unbroken packages at Boston, Mass., alleging that the article had been?
shipped by the Leading Perfumers & Chemists, Inc., New York, N. Y., on or?
about November 17, 1921, and transported from the State of New York into?
the State of Massachusetts, and charging adulteration and misbranding in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: " Lepeco?
2 Fluid Ounces Lemon * * * Leading Perfumers & Chemists, Inc. New?
York."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in substance in the libel for the rea??
son that a substance deficient in lemon oil and containing little if any lemon?
oil had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce and lower and in??
juriously affect its quality and strength and had been substituted wholly or?
in part for extract of lemon, which the said article purported to be, and for?
the further .reason that the said substance had been mixed in a manner?
whereby its damage and inferiority to extract of lemon were concealed.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the statement, to?
wit, " Extract Of Lemon * * * Strength Combined with delicacy of flavor?
makes this extract unexcelled," borne upon the carton and bottle labels, regard??
ing the article and the substances and ingredients contained therein, was?
false and misleading in that the said statement represented the article to be?
extract of lemon, to wit, an article containing an appreciable and customary?
amount of oil of lemon, and for the further reason that the article was labeled?
as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that?
it was extract of lemon, to wit, an article containing an appreciable and?
customary amount of oil of lemon, whereas, in truth and in fact, the said?
article was not extract of lemon containing an appreciable and customary?
amount of oil of lemon, but was an adulterated article artificially colored, con??
taining little, if any, lemon oil. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason?
that the article was an artificially colored product containing no lemon oil or a?
deficient quantity of lemon oil, and was an imitation of, and offered for sale?
under the distinctive name of, another article, to wit, extract of lemon.
On February 16, 1922, 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.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.