18733. Adulteration and misbranding- of vanilla extract. U. S. v. 30 Dozen 
Bottles et al. of Vanilla Extract. Default decrees of condemna- 
tion, forfeiture, and destruction. (F. & D. Nos. 20106, 20131, 20149. 
I. S. Nos. 14270-v, 14271-v, 24542-v, 24970-v. S. Nos. B-*5322, E-5344, 
E-5386.)
On or about June 11, 22, and 29, 1925, respectively, the United States at- 
torney for the District of Connecticut, acting upon reports by the Secretary 
of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said dis- 
trict libels praying the seizure and condemnation of 77 dozen bottles of 
vanilla extract, remaining in the original unbroken packages in various 
lots, at Hartford, Bridgeport, and New London, Conn., respectively, alleging 
that the article had been shipped by the Fulton Mfg. Co., New York, N. Y., 
in various consignments, namely, on or about December 2, 1924, and March 
18 and April 20, 1925, respectively, and transported from the State of 
New York into the State of Connecticut, and charging adulteration and mis- 
branding in violation of the food and drugs act as amended. The article was 
labeled in part: (Bottle and carton) "Fulton Brand Pure Vanilla Extract 
Purity And Quality Fulton Manufacturing Co. New York Contents 6 Drams " 
(or "Contents 2 Oz." or "Contents 2 Ounces"), as the case might be.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libels for the reason that a 
substance, a substandard vanilla extract, mixed and colored in a manner 
whereby damage and inferiority was concealed, had been substituted wholly
[Supplement 205
or in part for the said article and had been mixed and packed therewith so 
as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements "Pare Vanilla 
Extract Purity And Quality Contents 6 Drams" or "Contents 2 Qz." or 
" Contents 2 Ounces," as the case might be, borne on the labels, were false- 
and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was al- 
leged for the further reason that the article was food in package form and1 
the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the- 
outside of the package, and for the further reason that it was offered for- 
sale under the distinctive name of another article.
On August 19, 1925, 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 State's marshal.
R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.