10802.?Adulteration   and   misbranding   of   vinegar.    V.   S.   v.   67   Cases,  20*
Cases,  and  106 Cases  of Vinegar.     Default  decrees  of condemna??
tion and forfeiture.     Product ordered destroyed or sold.     (F. & D.
Nos. 14959, 14960, 14961.    I. S. Nos. 5071-t, 5068-t, 5069-t.    S. Nos. K-3326,.?
E-3369.)
On May 28, 1921, the United States attorney for the District of Connecticut,
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
18870?22?1?
445
446	
BUREAU OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 147,
of 67 cases, 20 cases, and 106 cases of vinegar, remaining unsold in the original?
unbroken packages at Hartford and New London, Conn., alleging that the?
article had been shipped on or about May 24, June 19, July 15, September 22,?
and May 18, 1920, by the Naas Cider & Vinegar Co., Cohocton, N. Y., and?
transported from the State of New York into the State of Connecticut, and?
charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drags?
Act. The article was labeled in part: " Steuben Brand Reduced to 4? Acetic?
Acid * * * reduced Cider Vinegar fermented * * * Made from Apples?
* * * Net Contents One Pint * * * Naas Cider & Vinegar Co., Inc.?
Cohocton, N. Y."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libels for the reason that dis??
tilled vinegar had been mixed and packed with the article so as to reduce and?
lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been substituted?
wholly or in part for the article aforesaid, and for the further reason that the?
article had been mixed in a manner whereby its inferiority was concealed.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that the labeling upon?
the cases containing it bore certain statements, designs, words, and devices?
as follows, " Cider Vinegar fermented Made from Apples Net Contents One?
Pint" (design showing red apple), which statements, designs, words, and de??
vices were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Mis??
branding was alleged for the further reason that the said article was an imita??
tion of and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article,?
to wit, cider vinegar, and for the further reason that it was food in package?
form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously?
marked on the outside of the package.
On September 30, 1921, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg??
ments of condemnation and forfeiture were entered, and it was ordered by the?
court that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal, with the?
proviso that in case the said marshal was able to effect a speedy sale of the?
article at private sale he should do so.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.