18556. Adulteration and Misbranding of canned grapefmlt juice. U. S. ?. 
98% Cases, et al., \>t Grapefruit Juice. Decree of condemnation 
and forfeiture.    Product released under bond.    (F. & D. No. 26190.
I. S. Nos. 28714, 28715, 28716, 28717.    S. No. 4503.)
Samples of canned grapefruit juice from the shipments herein described 
having been found to contain added undeclared sugar, and portions thereof 
having been found to be short of the declared volume, the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture reported the matter to the United States attorney for the District of Mary- 
land.
On April 7,1931, the United States attorney filed in the District Court of the 
United States for the district aforesaid a libel praying seizure and condemna- 
tion of 98% cases and-35% cases, each containing 4 dozen cans, 127 cases, each
containing 2 dozen cans, and 47 cases, each containing 1 dozen cans of grapefruit 
juice, remaining in the original unbroken package's at Baltimore, Md., alleging 
that the article had been shipped from Jacksonville, Fla., by Roberts Bros. 
(Inc.), in part on or about February 5, 1931, and in part on or about February 
26, 1931, and had been transported from the State of Florida into the State of 
Maryland, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the food 
and drugs act as amended.
The article was labeled in part: (Cans) "Roberts Big R. Brand * * * 
Juice * * * Florida Grapefruit [or " Roberts Big R. Brand, Florida Grape- 
fruit Juice "] * * * Packed by Roberts Bros. Inc., Winter Haven, Fla. Main 
Office. Baltimore, Md. U. S. A." The cans in three of the four lots bore state- 
ments of the quantity of the contents as follows: " Contents 8 oz.," " Contents 
10% Oz.," or " Contents 1 Pt. 2 Fl. Oz." The cans in the fourth lot bore the 
statement, " 1 Pt. 2 Fl. Oz." overstamped with " 3 Pt. 8 Fl. Oz."
It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that sugar had 
been substituted in part for the said article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the article was offered for sale 
under the distinctive name of another article. Misbranding was alleged for the 
further reason that the statements on the can labels, " Juice * * * Grape- 
fruit," or " Grapefruit Juice," were false and misleading and deceived and mis- 
led the purchaser when applied to grapefruit juice containing added sugar. 
Misbranding was alleged wih respect to portions of the article for the further 
reason that the statements on the can labels, "Contents 3 Pt. 8 Fl. Oz.," "Con- 
tents 8 oz.," or " Contents 10% Oz.," as the case might be, were false and mis- 
leading and deceived and misled the purchaser when applied to an article con- 
taining less amounts. Misbranding was alleged with respect to the said portions 
for the further reason that the article was food in package form and the quan- 
tity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of 
the packages, since the statements made were not correct.
On April 21, 1931, Roberts Bros. (Inc.), Baltimore, Md., having appeared as 
claimant for the property, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, 
and it was ordered by the court that the product be released to the said claimant 
upon payment of costs and the execution of a bond in the sum of $1,000, condi- 
tioned in part that it should not be sold or otherwise disposed of until relabeled 
to conform to the requirements of the Federal food and drugs act.
ABTHTJE M. HTDE, Secretary of Agriculture.