11538. Adulteration and misbranding- of vinegar. U. S. v. 45 Barrels of?
Vinegar. Consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture.?
Product released under bond. (F. & D. No. 16984. I. S. No. 15?>-y.?
S. No. E-4227.)
On November 18, 1922, the United States attorney for the District of Con??
necticut, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district a libel praying the seizure?
and condemnation of 45 barrels of vinegar, remaining unsold in the original?
unbroken packages at Waterbury, Conn., consigned by the Powell Corp.,?
Canandaigua, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about?
September 16, 1922, into the State of Connecticut, 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 Reduced To 4??
*    *    *   Man'f'd By The Powell Corp Canandaigua, N. Y."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that dis??
tilled and evaporated apple products vinegar had been mixed and packed?
therewith so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and?
strength and had been substituted wholly or in part for the said article.?
Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the article was mixed in?
a manner whereby damage or inferiority was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the labels on the barrels con??
taining the article bore the following statement, " Pure Cider Vinegar Made?
From Apples," which was false and misleading and deceived and misled the?
purchaser. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article?
was an imitation of and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of?
another article, to wit, cider vinegar.
On May 23, 1923, the Powell Corp., Canandaigua, N. Y., having appeared as?
claimant for the property and having consented to the entry of a decree, judg-
292	
BUBEAU   OF   CHEMISTBY.	
[Supplement 163,
went of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the?
court that the product be released to said claimant upon payment of the costs??
of the proceedings and the execution of a good and sufficient bond, in con??
formity with section 10 of the act.
HOWARD M. GOBE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.