10789.?Adulteration and misbranding of vinegar.    TJ. S. v. 14 Barrels, et al,
of Vinegar. Consent decrees of condemnation and forfeiturei?
Product released under bond. (P. & D. Nos. 16377, 16381, 16397. I. S.?
Nos. 6083-t, 15029-t, 15031-t.    S. Nos. E-3891, E-3897, E-3953.)
On June 3, 9, and 19, 1922, respectively, the United States attorney for the?
Western District of Pennsylvania, 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 133 barrels of vinegar, remaining?
in the original unbroken packages, in part at Pittsburgh and in part at New?
Castle, Pa., alleging that the article bad been shipped by the National Vinegai?
Co. from Brocton, N. Y., between the dates of May 3 and' May 19, 1922, and?
transported from the State of New York into the State of Pennsylvania, and?
charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act.?
The article was labeled in part: " Pure Cider Vinegar Made from Apples?
*    *    *    Distributed by National Vinegar Company, Buffalo, N. Y."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in substance in the libels for the?
reason that distilled vinegar, with respect to a portion of the product, and?
distilled vinegar and vinegar made from evaporated apple products, with?
respect to the remainder thereof, had been mixed and packed therewith so aa to?
reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been,?
substituted wholly or in part for the said article.
N. J. 10751-10800]     SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.      439
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the statement?
" Pure Cider Vinegar made from Apples * * *," appearing in the labeling?
of the article, was false and misleading, and deceived and misled the purchaser.?
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was an imita??
tion of and offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article,?
" Pure Ccler Vinegar Made from Apples."
On August 3, 1922, the Brocton Products Co., Brocton, N. Y., claimant, hav??
ing admitted the allegations of the libels, with the exception of the allegations-?
which charge adulteration, and having consented to the entry of a decree, judg??
ment of the court was entered, declaring the product to be adulterated and or??
dering its condemnation and providing that it be released to the said claimant,?
upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in?
the aggregate sum of $1,500, in conformity with section 10 of the act
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture*