5169. Adulteration, and misbranding of vinegar. U. S. * * * v. 5 Bar??
rels of Vinegar. Tried to the court and a jury. Finding for tb_e?
Government. Decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product?
ordered released on bond. (F. & D. No. 7517. I. S. No. 4484-1. S. No.?
E-644.)
On June 9, 1916, the United States attorney for the western district of South?
Carolina, 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 5 barrels of vinegar, consigned by Dawson Brothers Manufac??
turing Co., Atlanta, Ga., remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages?
at Newberry, S. C, alleging that the article had been shipped and transported?
from the State of Georgia into the State of South Carolina, the shipment having?
been received on May 1, 1916, and charging adulteration and misbranding in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part:?
? * * * Southern Beauty Brand Pure Apple Cider Vinegar Diluted to 4 PC?
Acid Strength   *    *    *."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that sub??
stances other than pure apple cider vinegar, to wit, dilute distilled vinegar and?
dilute acetic acid product, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to re??
duce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been sub??
stituted in part for a like amount of pure apple cider vinegar.
It was charged in substance that the article was misbranded for the reason?
that the statement appearing on the label, to wit, " Pure Apple Cider Vinegar,"?
was false and misleading in that it purported that the article was pure apple?
cider vinegar; and for the further reason that the article was labeled as afore??
said so as to deceive and mislead the purchasers into the belief that it was pure?
apple cider vinegar, whereas it was not, but was, in fact, apple cider "vinegar to?
which has been added dilute distilled vinegar and a dilute acetic acid product;?
and for the further reason that the article was an imitation of, and was offered?
for sale under the distinctive name of, another article, to wit, pure apple cider?
vinegar.
On November 9, 1916, the case came on for final disposition, and the Govern??
ment submitted its evidence to the court and a jury. Upon this evidence the?
jury after being charged by the court made a finding for the Government,?
and thereafter on November 24, 1916, a formal decree of condemnation and?
forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product should?
be delivered to the said Dawson Brothers Manufacturing Co., claimant, upon?
the payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond, in con??
formity with section 10 of the act.
CAEL VEOOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
196	
BUREAU   OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 34.