25721. Adulteration and misbranding of alleged blackberry wine.    17. S. v. 25
Bottles and 14 Bottles of Alleged Blackberry Wine. Default decree of 
condemnation. Product delivered to the Secretary of the Treasury 
for disposal according to law. (F. & D. nos. 37131, 37132. Sample nos. 
51174-B, 51175-B.)
These cases involved interstate shipments of so-called blackberry wine which 
was artificially colored grape wine, containing little or no blackberry flavor, 
and a portion of which contained a lower percentage of alcohol than that rep- 
resented on the label.
On January 30,1936, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Supreme 
Court of the District of Columbia, holding a district court, two libels, one 
praying seizure and condemnation of twenty-five 1-gallon bottles, and the other, 
fourteen 1-gallon bottles of so-called blackberry wine, at Washington, D. C, 
alleging that the articles had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about 
November 27 and December 23 and 27, 1935, by Miglioretti Bros., from Balti- 
more, Md., and that the articles were adulterated and misbranded in violation 
of the Food and Drugs Act. The article in the lot of 25 bottles was labeled: 
"A product of California Native Blackberry Type A natural fermented Wine 
Bottled from tax paid goods by Miglioretti Bros. Baltimore, Md." The article 
in the lot of 14 bottles was labeled: "A product of California Native Black- 
berry A natural fermented Wine Bottled from tax paid goods by Miglioretti 
Bros., Baltimore, Md. Alcohol Strength not over 14%, nor under 11% by 
volume.*'
The article in the lot of 25 bottles and in the lot of 14 bottles was alleged 
to be adulterated (a) in that an artificially colored grape wine containing little 
or no blackberry flavor had been substituted for blackberry wine, which the 
article purported to be, and (b) in that the article had been mixed and colored 
in a manner whereby inferiority was concealed.
The article in the lot of 25 bottles was alleged to be misbranded in that the 
statement, "Blackberry Type * * * Wine", borne on the label, was false 
and misleading and tended to deceive and mislead the purchaser, when applied 
to an artificially colored grape wine containing little or no blackberry flavor. 
The article in the lot of 14 bottles was alleged to be misbranded in that the 
statement, "Blackberry * * * Wine Alcohol Strength not over 14% nor 
under 11% by volume", borne on the label, was false and misleading and tended 
to deceive and mislead the purchaser, when applied to an artificially colored 
grape wine containing little or no blackberry flavor, and containing 10.5 percent 
of alcohol by volume. The article in the lot of 25 bottles and in the lot of 
14 bottles was alleged to be misbranded in that it was an imitation of and 
appeared for sale under the distinctive name of another article.
On April 8,1936, no claimant having appeared, decrees of condemnation were 
entered and it was ordered that the product be delivered to the Secretary of the 
Treasury for disposal by him in accordance with law,
W. R. GBEGG, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.