10577.?Misbranding- of sirups.    U. S.     *     *     *     v. 40 Gases, et al, of Crystal
White, 8 Cases, et al, of Maple Flavor, and 35 Cases, et al, of?
Golden Sirup. Consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture.?
Product released under bond. (F. & D. No. 15106. I. S. Nos. 3476-t,?
3477-t, 3479-t, 3480-t.    S. No. C-3085.)
On July 13, 1921, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wis??
consin, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and?
condemnation of 105 cases of Crystal White sirup, 25 cases of maple flavor?
sirup, and 165 cases of Golden sirup, remaining unsold in the original unbroken?
packages at Green Bay, Wis., alleging that the articles had been shipped by?
Penick & Ford, New Orleans, La., April 15, 1921, and transported from the?
State of Louisiana into the State of Wisconsin, and charging misbranding in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. The articles were labeled?
in part, respectively: (Cans) "Penick Syrup Crystal White * * * Net?
Weight 10 Pounds (or " 5 Pounds " or " 1$ Pounds ") * * * Penick & Ford,?
Ltd., New Orleans * * * "; " Penick Syrup Maple Flavor * * * A Com??
pound Of Corn Syrup, Sugar Syrup And Imitation Maple Flavor Net Weight?
5 Pounds (or "U Pounds") * * *";" Penick Syrup Golden * * * Net?
Weight li Pounds (or "5 Pounds," "10 Pounds," or "2i Pounds") "?*' '*    *."
Misbranding of the articles was alleged in substance in the libel for the rea??
son that the statements on the respective labels, " Net Weight 10 Pounds,"?
"Net Weight 5 Pounds," "Net Weight 2\ Pounds," and "Net Weight 1$?
Pounds," and the statement on the alleged maple flavor, " Maple Flavor," not?
corrected by the statement at the bottom of the label, " A Compound Of Corn?
Syrup, Sugar Syrup and Imitation Flavor," were false and misleading and
N. J. 10551-10600]   SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	325
deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was alleged in substance 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 out??
side of the respective packages, since the amount stated was incorrect.
On July 20, 1921, Penick & Ford, Ltd., Inc., New Orleans, La., claimant, hav??
ing admitted the allegations of the libel and having consented to a decree,?
judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by?
the court that the product be released to the said claimant upon payment of?
the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a good and sufficient bond, in?
conformity with section 10 of the act.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.