3417. Adulteration and misbranding' of scuppernong wine. V. S. v. 22?
Cases of Scuppernong: Wine. Default decree of condemnation and?
forfeiture.     Goods distributed to charitable institutions.     (F. & D.
No. 4507.    I. S. No. 517-e.    S. No. 1502.)
On September 12, 1912, the United States attorney for the Eastern District?
of Michigan, 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 22 cases, each containing 12 bottles of so-called scuppernong?
wine, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages, at Detroit, Mich.,?
alleging that the product had been shipped on July 20, 1912, and transported?
from the State of Ohio into the State of Michigan, and charging adulteration?
and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The product was?
labeled : " Speeial Wine?Belle of the Valley?Scuppernong Bouquet?Trade?
Mark?Delaware and Scuppernong Blend Ameliorated with Sugar Solution"?
" Guaranteed by the Sweet Valley Wine Company under the Food & Drugs Act?
of  June  30,  1906.    Special?Trade  Mark."
It was alleged in the libel that the article of food was misbranded in viola??
tion of paragraph 1 of section 8 of the Food and Drugs Act, and also in viola-
Supplement.]   SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	649
tion of paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of said section 8, under the classification of?
" Food" in said act; and was further liable to condemnation in that it was?
adulterated in violation of section 7 of said Food and Drugs Act and of para??
graphs 1 and 2 under " Food" in said act, an examination of the samples?
of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture?
having revealed that said product was imitation scuppernong wine, prepared?
wholly or in part of [from( ?)] a mixture of pomace wine and other wines, and?
very little, if any, scuppernong wine, thus reducing or injuriously affecting its?
quality and strength as aforesaid, said misbranding, labeling, and adulteration,?
as aforesaid, constituting a violation within the meaning of the act of June 30,?
3906.
On April 27, 1914, the case having come on for final hearing, judgment of?
condemnation and forfeiture by default was taken, and it was ordered by the?
court that the product should be distributed to certain charitable institutions.
D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 28, 191?.