i:il>23. Misbranding? and alleged adulteration of vinegar. V. S. v. 35 Bar- 
rels of Vinegar. Consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture. 
Product released under bond.     (F. & D. No. 15607.    I. S. No. 14917-t.
S. No. C-3350.) 
%
On December 6, 1921, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Michigan, 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 35 barrels of vinegar, remaining in the original unbroken 
packages at Pontiac, Mich., alleging that the article had been shipped by the 
Douglas Packing Co., from Canastota, N. Y., October 24, 1921, and transported 
from the State of New York into the State of Michigan, and charging adultera- 
tion and misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act. The article was 
labeled in part: " Douglas Packing Co. Apple Cider Vinegar Made From Se- 
lected Apples   *   *   *   Rochester, N. Y."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that vine- 
gar made from evaporated or dried apple products had been mixed and packed 
therewith so as to injuriously affect its quality and had been substituted 
wholly or in part for apple cider vinegar made from selected apples, which the 
said article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the article was an imitation 
of and offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, to wit, 
apple cider vinegar made from selected apples. Misbranding was alleged for 
the further reason that the article was labeled "Apple Cider Vinegar Made 
From Selected Apples," so as to deceive and mislead purchasers, and for the 
further reason that the statement "Apple Cider Vinegar Made From Selected 
Apples," borne on the labels, was false and misleading, in that the product 
contained barium.
On August 4, 1925, the Douglas Packing Co., Syracuse, N. Y., having appeared 
as claimant for the property and having consented to the entry of a decree, 
judgment of the court was entered, finding the product misbranded and order- 
ing its condemnation and forfeiture, and it was further ordered by the court 
that the product be released to the said claimant upon payment of the costs 
of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of $225, in conform- 
ity with section 10 of the act.
R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
.   481