3206.?Adulteration  and  misbranding   of  wine.   XT.   s.   v.   10   Barrels   of   So-
called   Wine.   Consent    decree    of    condemnation   and   forfeiture.?
Product ordered released on bond.     (F. & D. No. 5377.    S. No. 1977.)
On October 25, 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 10 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 or about October 8, 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?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The product was labeled: " Jack?
Johnson made wine preserved with 1/10 of 1 per cent of sodium benzoate.?
Nola Trading Company. New Orleans La.    Momus 136 Oct 8 13 14."
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the libel for the reason that it?
contained substances which had been mixed with it so as to reduce, lower, and?
injuriously affect its quality and strength, and, further, for the reason that a?
certain substance had been substituted in part for the article itself, and for the?
further reason that the article was colored and mixed with certain artifi??
cial coloring matter in a manner whereby inferiority was concealed.   Mis-
394	
BUREAU OP  CHEMISTRY.	
[May, 1914.
blinding of the article was alleged for the reason that the product was labeled?
" Wine," when, in fact, the said article consisted of an imitation wine, artifi??
cially colored, and that in this manner the said label was false and misleading?
in regard to the ingredients of the said 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 mis??
lead the purchaser into believing that the said article was wine, when, in?
truth and fact, it was not wine but.was imitation wine artificially colored.
On November 24, 1913, the said Two Brothers Wine and Liquor Co., claim??
ants, having filed their answer admitting the aforesaid allegations in the libel?
and consenting to a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was?
entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product should be delivered?
to said claimants upon payment of the costs of the proceeding and execution?
of bond in the sum of $200, in conformity with section 10 of the act.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, May 26, 19H.