3991. Adulteration and misbranding ol vinegar. U. S. * * * v. 190 Barrels of Vinegari? Consent decree ol condemnation and forfeiture. Product ordered relased on bond. (F. & D. No. 6292. I. S. No. 2614-k. S. No. E-219.) On February 12, 1915, the United States attorney for trie Western District of Penn?? sylvania, 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? 190 barrels purporting to contain pure cider vinegar and remaining unsold in the? original unbroken packages, at Pittsburgh, Pa., alleging that 60 barrels of the product? had been shipped January 18, 1915, 56 on January 19, 1915, and 74 barrels on or about? January 21, 1915, by George Naas & Son Co., Cohocton, N. Y., and transported from? the State of New York into the State of Pennsylvania, and charging adulteration and? misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The product was labeled in part:? (On one barrel head) "Purity Vinegar Works, Cohocton, N. Y. Purity Brand Pure? Apple Cider Vinegar Geo. Naas and Son Co. Prop." The other heads of the barrels? bore numerals to indicate the measure of their contents. Adulteration of the product was alleged in the libel for the reason that it consisted? in whole or part of distilled vinegar and added mineral matter which had been mixed? and packed with and substituted for apple vinegar. Misbranding was alleged for the? reason that the article of food was offered for sale under the distinctive name of? "Purity Brand, Pure Apple Cider Vinegar," when in fact it was not pure apple cider? vinegar, but consisted in whole or in part of distilled vinegar and added mineral matter? which had been mixed and packed with and substituted for apple vinegar. On March 1, 1915, the said George Naas & Son Co., a partnership, claimants, filed? their answer, denying that the product was adulterated or improperly branded,? and on April 17, 1915, their petition that the product should be delivered to them? upon payment of the costs of the proceeding and the execution of a bond in the sum? of $1,500. On April 17, 1915, the court having heard the petition of said claimants, it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the product had been misbranded, and it appearing to the court that the costs of the proceeding had been paid and a good and sufficient bond executed and delivered in conformity with section 10 of the act, it was further ordered that the United States marshal should deliver the product to said claimants. C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. WASHINGTON, D. C, July 19, 1915. 634 BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY. [Supplement 10.