3193.?Adulteration  and misbranding  of  wine.     U.   S.  v.  67  Barrels   of   So-
Called   Wine.      Consent   decree   of   condemnation   and   forfeiture.?
Product released on bond.     (F. & D. No. 5349.    S. No. 1957.)
On October 13, 1913, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of?
Louisiana, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and?
condemnation of 67 barrels of so-called wine remaining unsold in the original?
unbroken packages and on the wharfs of the Southern Pacific Co., New Orleans,?
La., alleging that the product had been shipped on September 20 and 27, and?
October 1, 1913, by the Two Brothers Wine and Liquor Co., Newark, N. J., and?
transported from the State of New Jersey into the State of Louisiana, and?
charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs?
Act. The product was labeled: " Jack Johnson made wine preserved with one?
tenth of one per cent of sodium benzoate to Nola Trading Company, New?
Orleans, Louisiana."
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the libel for the reason that it?
contained certain substances which had been mixed with it so as to reduce,?
lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and, further, in that it?
was colored and mixed with certain artificial coloring matter in a" manner?
whereby inferiority was concealed. Misbranding was alleged for the reason?
that the product was labeled " Wine," when, in fact, it consisted of imitation?
wine artificially colored, and that in this manner said label was false and mis??
leading in regard to the ingredients of the article contained in the barrels upon?
which said label appeared; and said article was further misbranded in that it?
was an imitation of and offered for sale under the distinctive name of another?
article, to wit, wine. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the?
product was labeled and branded wine so as to deceive and mislead the pur??
chaser into the belief that it was wine, when, in truth and in fact, it was not?
wine but was an imitation wine, artificially colored.
On November 24, 1913, the said Two Brothers Wine and Liquor Co., claim??
ant, having consented to a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was?
entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product should be sold by the?
United States marshal. It was provided, however, that the product should be?
released to said claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and the?
execution of bond in the sum of $1,100, in conformity with section 10 of the act.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, May 26, 1911^.