14455. Adulteration and misbranding of jellies. IT. S. v. Shenandoah Val- 
ley Apple Cider & Vinegar Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $100 and 
costs.     (F. & D. No. 19665.     I.  S. Nos.  16301-v,  16302-v,  16373-v,  16374-v,
16375-v.)
On August 15, 1925, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
Virginia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
the Shenandoah Valley Apple Cider & Vinegar Co., a corporation, Winchester, 
Va., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the food and drugs 
act, on or about October 9, 1924, from the State of Virginia into the State of 
North Carolina, of quantities of jellies which were adulterated and misbranded. 
The articles were labeled in part: (Glass) "Apple-Raspberry Flavor Jelly" 
(or "Apple Jelly" or "Apple-Cherry Flavor Jelly" or "Apple-Strawberry 
I^lavor Jelly " or "Apple-Blackberry Flavor Jelly") " Pure Cane Sugar And 
Apple Pectin.   Shenandoah Valley Apple Cider & Vinegar Co. Winchester, Va."
Adulteration of the articles was alleged in the information for the reason 
that certain substances, to wit, pectin and sugar, had been mixed and packed 
with the said articles so as to lower and reduce and injuriously affect their 
quality and strength and in that pectin jellies had been substituted in part 
for the said articles.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, to wit, "Apple- 
Raspberry Flavor Jelly," "Apple Jelly," "Apple-Cherry Flavor Jelly," "Apple- 
Strawberry Flavor Jelly," and "Apple-Blackberry Flavor Jelly," borne on the
labels of the respective articles, were false and misleading, in that the said 
statements represented that the articles consisted wholly of apple-raspberry 
flavor jelly, apple jelly, apple-cherry flavor jelly, apple-strawberry flavor jelly, 
or apple-blackberry flavor jelly, as the case might be, and for the further 
reason that they were labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the 
purchaser into the belief that they consisted wholly of the above named 
jellies, whereas they did not but did consist in large part of pectin and 
sugar. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the articles were 
offered for sale and sold under the distinctive names of other articles.
On October 26, 1925, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $100 and costsl
W. M. JARDINB, Secretary of Agriculture.   :