11479.?Adulteration   and   misbranding   of   assorted   jellies.    V.S.    v.   29
Cases and 25 Oases of Assorted Jellies. Consent decrees of con??
demnation    and    forfeiture.     Products     released    under    bond.
(F. & D. Nos. 17448, 17449. I. S. Nos. 8249-v, 8250-v, 8701-v, 8702-v,?
8742-v, 8743-v, 8744-v, 8745-v.    S. Nos. W-1365, W-1366.)
On April 7, 1923, the United States attorney for the District of Colorado, act??
ing upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of?
the United States for said district libels praying the seizure and condemnation?
of 54 cases of assorted jellies, remaining unsold in the original unbroken pack??
ages, in part at Trinidad and in part at Denver, Colo., consigned by Libby, Mc??
Neill & Libby, in various consignments, namely, from Chicago and Blue Island,?
111., and Gibson Transfer, Ind., respectively, alleging that the articles had been?
shipped in part on or about July 24, and in part on or about November 1, 1922,?
and transported from the States of Indiana and Illinois, respectively, into the?
State of Colorado, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of?
the Food and Drugs Act. The articles were labeled in part: " Libby's * * *?
Apple Jelly" (or "Apple-Strawberry Jelly" or "Apple-Currant Jelly" or "Ap??
ple-Raspberry Jelly") "* * * Packed & Guaranteed By Libby, McNeill &?
Libby Main Office Chicago."
Adulteration of the articles was alleged in substance in the libels for the?
reason that pectin had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce and?
lower and injuriously affect their quality and strength, and for the further?
reason that acidified pectin jellies had been substituted wholly or in part for?
the fruit jellies, which the said products purported to be.
Misbranding of the articles was alleged for the reason that the statements,?
"Apple Jelly," "Apple-Strawberry Jelly," "Apple-Currant Jelly," and "Apple-?
Raspberry Jelly," appearing on the labels of the respective jars of the said?
jellies, were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser?
thereof. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the articles were?
imitations of and were offered for sale under the distinctive names of other?
articles.
On May 11, 1923, Libby, McNeill & Libby, Chicago, 111., claimant, having ad??
mitted the allegations of the libels and consented to the entry of decrees,?
judgments of condemnation and forfeiture were entered, and it was ordered?
by the court that the products be released to the said claimant upon payment?
of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of bonds in the aggregate?
sum of $375, in conformity with section 10 of the act.
HOWARD M. GORE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.