19006. Adulteration and Misbranding of jelly.     V. S. v. The Royal Remedy
& Extract Co.    Plea of guilty.    Fine, $10.     (F. & D. No. 26599.    I. S. 
Nos. 7306, 7307, 029820, 029821, 029822.)
Examination of a product, represented to be apple pectin jelly, having shown 
that the article was imitation jelly, the Secretary of Agriculture reported the 
matter to the United States attorney for the Southern District of Ohio.
On August 28, 1931, the United States attorney filed in the District Court of 
the United States for the district aforesaid an information against the Royal 
Remedy & Extract Co., a corporation, Dayton, Ohio, alleging shipment by said 
company in violation of the food and drugs act, from the State of Ohio into the 
State of Michigan, in part on or about December 28, 1929, and in part on 
or about July 21, 1930, of quantities of jelly that was adulterated and mis- 
branded. The article was labeled in part: (Glass) " Souders Apple Pectin Jelly 
Strawberry [or " Raspberry " or " Blackberry "] Flavor * * * Royal Rem- 
edy & Extract Co. Dayton, Ohio.'*
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that imi- 
tation jelly had been substituted for jelly, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement " Jelly," borne on 
the label, was false and misleading in that the said statement represented that 
the article was jelly; and for the further reason that it was labeled as afore-
said so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was jelly, 
whereas it was not jelly, but was imitation jelly. Misbranding was alleged for 
the further reason that the article was an imitation of jelly and was offered for 
sale and sold under the distinctive name of another article.
On November 24, 1931, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on 
behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $10.
ABTHTJB M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.