11123. Adulteration and misbranding of chocolate. TJ. S. v. 6 Boxeii of?
Dairy Maid Vanilla Chocolate, et al. Consent decree of condem??
nation and forfeiture. Product delivered to charitable institu??
tion. (F. & D. No. 15954. I. S. Nos. 15544-t, 15545-t, 15546-t, 15547-t,?
15548-t.    S. No. E-3757.)
On February 2, 1922, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
New York, 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 6 boxes of Dairy Maid vanilla chocolate, 4 boxes of Dairy?
Maid milk chocolate, 4 boxes of Dairy Maid brand milk chocolate dainties, 8?
boxes of vanilla chocolate wafers, and 4 boxes of Dairy Maid brand vanilla?
chocolate dainties, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at?
New York, N. Y., consigned by the Brewster Sons Co., Newark, N. J., alleging?
that the articles had'been shipped from Newark, N. J., on or about December?
28, 1921, and January 9, 1922, and transported from the State of New Jersey?
into the State of New York, and charging adulteration and misbranding in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The articles were labeled variously:?
" li Ounces Dairy Maid Vanilla Chocolate Made by Brewster Sons Company?
Newark* N. J. 5 Cents;" " li Ounces Dairy Maid Milk Chocolate Made by?
Brewster Sons Company Newark, N. J. 5 Cents;" " 21 Pounds Dairy Maid Milk?
Chocolate Dainties Brewster Sons Company, Newark, N. J.;" " 3 Pounds Nassau?
Vanilla Chocolate Wafers Brewster Sons Company, Newark, N. J.;" " 1\?
Pounds Dairy Maid Vanilla Chocolate Dainties Brewster Sons Company,?
Newark, N. J."
Adulteration of the articles was alleged in the libel for the reason that a?
substance, excessive cocoa shells, had been mixed and packed with and sub??
stituted wholly or in part for the said articles.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements on the respec??
tive packages, " Vanilla Chocolate," " Milk Chocolate," " Milk Chocolate?
Dainties," " Vanilla Chocolate Wafers," and " Vanilla Chocolate Dainties," as?
the case might be, were false and misleading and deceived and misled the?
purchaser. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that each of the?
said articles was an imitation of and was offered for sale under the distinc??
tive name of another article.
On October 24, 1922, the Brewster Sons Co., Newark, N. J., claimant, having?
admitted the allegations of the libel and consented to the entry of a decree,?
judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered?
by the court that the product be delivered to the Salvation Army for con??
sumption and not for sale.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.