F. & D. No. 1206.
S. No. 418.	
IssuĞd May 22, 1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE  OF  THE  SECRETARY.
NOTICE  OF JUDGMENT  NO. 1451.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION  AND  MISBRANDING  OF  VANILLA  EXTRACT.
On or about December 1, 1909, the Hudson Manufacturing Co.?
shipped from the State of Illinois into the State of Louisiana two?
barrels of alleged vanilla extract consigned to the New Orleans Ice?
Cream Co. The product bore the following brand: "Hudson's Ex??
tract, made by the Hudson Manufacturing Co., Chicago, 111." and?
attached to each of said barrels was a tag bearing the following in??
scription: "New Orleans Ice Cream Co., 415 Baronne St., New Or??
leans, La., from Hudson Mfg. Co., Chicago, 111."
Analysis of a sample of said product, made by the Bureau of?
Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture, indicated?
that the product had been fortified by the addition of commercial?
vanillin and coumarin; that it contained but a small quantity, if?
any, of vanilla extract, and was artificially colored. As it appeared?
from the findings of the analyst and report thereon that the product?
was adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of the Food and?
Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, and liable to seizure for confiscation?
under section 10 of said Act, the Secretary of Agriculture reported?
the facts to the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of?
Louisiana.
On January 29, 1910, a libel containing the usual jurisdictional?
averment was filed against the aforesaid two barrels of vanilla ex??
tract, alleging the adulteration and misbranding of said product.?
The said libel was subsequently twice amended and, as finally?
amended, alleged the adulteration and misbranding of the product?
as follows: Libellants aver that the extract mentioned in the origi??
nal libel herein was, when shipped from the State of Illinois into the?
State of Louisiana, adulterated within the meaning of the Food and?
Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, in that there had been mixed and packed?
with it, so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and?
strength, commercial vanillin and coumarin; and that said commercial?
vanillin and coumarin had been substituted in whole or in part for
10197??No. 1451?12
the genuine vanilla extract; and that said article of food, to wit,?
the extract aforesaid, had been mixed and colored in a manner?
whereby damage and inferiority were concealed. Libellants further?
aver that said article of food, to wit the extract aforesaid, was mis-?
branded in this, that when it was offered for sale by the Hudson?
Manufacturing Co., of Chicago, 111., to the New Orleans Ice Cream?
Co., it was offered for sale as vanilla extract, whereas, in truth and?
in fact, it was not genuine vanilla extract but was an imitation?
thereof, and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of an??
other article, to wit, genuine vanilla extract. Process issued as?
prayed for in the libel and the said product was seized by the marshal?
of the court pursuant to its warrant of seizure.    On February 21,
1910,?the New Orleans Ice Cream Co. filed in said case a waiver and?
release of any and all right, title, and interest held by it in said product?
to the Hudson Manufacturing Co., and consent and agreement that?
said company might appear in said case as the sole owner and claim??
ant of said product. On February 21, 1910, the Hudson Manufac??
turing Co. filed its intervention in said case as claimant of said prop??
erty and also exceptions and demurrer to the libel, whereupon the?
court permitted the United States Attorney to amend the libel, and?
on June 9, 1910. the court entered an order overruling the said ex??
ceptions and demurrer to the said libel and gave claimant 10 days?
within which to answer. On June 17, 1910, the claimant, the Hudson?
Manufacturing Co., filed its answer to the said amended libel, to?
which answer the United States Attorney filed exception on December?
29, 1910, which exception was sustained by the court, and on Feb??
ruary 15, 1911, the claimant filed its amended answer.    On April 3,
1911,?the case coming on for trial, on motion of the United States At??
torney a jury was impanelled to try the issues joined in the said case,?
and on April 4, 1911, after the introduction of testimony both by?
the Government and the claimant and argument of counsel, the case?
was submitted to the jury, who returned a verdict finding the goods?
both adulterated and misbranded, whereupon the claimant, by its?
attorneys, moved the court for a new trial, which motion, as subse??
quently amended, was refused by the court, and thereupon, on May?
12, 1911, entered its decree in accordance with the verdict of the'jury?
condemning and forfeiting the product to the United States as being?
adulterated and misbranded, and ordering it to be sold by the mar??
shal, but with the proviso that the same might be released to the?
claimants upon the payment by them of all costs and the execution?
of a good and sufficient bond in the sum of $500, conditioned that?
said product should not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary?
to the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, or the laws of any?
State, Territory, District, or insular possession of the United States.
1451
On October 18, 1911, claimant having duly excepted to the order?
of the court refusing its motion for a new trial and filed its bill of?
exception, sued out a writ of error in said case to the United States?
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. After a full hearing?
of said case by the said Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit,?
the following judgment was rendered affirming the decree of the?
lower court:
Before PARDEE and MCCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, Dis??
trict Judge.
By the COURT:
Where there is no proof that the words " Hudson's Extract " have a well-known?
trade meaning, an imitation of vanilla marked "Hudson's Extract," without giving?
any indication of what the article is composed, shows a clean case of misbranding?
under the Pure Food Law.
The Judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
W. M. HAYS,
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, April 11, 1912.
1451