13943. Misbranding   and   alleged   adulteration   of   jam.     U.   S.   v.   5   Cases
Raspberry Jam, et al. Decree of condemnation and forfeiture. 
Product released under bond. (F. & D. No. 20432. I. S. Nos. 14581-v, 
14582-v, 14583-v.    S. No. W-1779.)
On October 6, 1925, the United States attorney for the District of Idaho, 
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 condemna- 
tion of 5 cases of raspberry jam, 25 cases of strawberry jam, and 7 cases of 
dewberry jam, remaining in the original unbroken packages at Pocatello, Idaho, 
alleging that the article had been shipped by the Hewlett Bros. Co., Salt Lake 
City, Utah, on or about April 9, 1925, and transported from the State of Utah 
into the State of Idaho, and charging misbranding with respect to all of the 
product and adulteration with respect to a portion thereof, in violation of the 
food and drugs act.   The article was labeled in part:  (Case)  "Hewlett's Su-
preme Brand * * * Superior Flavored High Grown Fruits. Hewlett Bros. 
Company, Salt Lake City, Utah," (can) "Hewlett's Supreme Brand Raspberry" 
(or "Strawberry" or "Dewberry")   "And Pectin Jam."
Adulteration of the raspberry jam was alleged in the libel for the reason 
that a substance, added tartaric acid, had been substituted wholly or in part 
for raspberry fruit.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the above quoted statements 
and labels borne on the said cases and cans were false and misleading and 
deceived and misled purchasers thereof, in that the article was deficient in 
actual fruit substance and contained pectin.
On October 26, 1925, the Skaggs United Stores, Pocatello, Idaho, having 
appeared as claimant for the. property, a decree of the court was entered, ad-" 
judging the product to be misbranded and subject to condemnation and forfei- 
ture, and it was ordered by the court that it be released to the said claimant 
upon the execution of a bond in the sum of $1,000, in conformity with section 
10 of the act, said decree further providing that the product be rebranded to 
show the true fruit content and the pectin content and that the claimant pay 
the costs of the proceedings.
R. W. DTJNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.