5842. Adulteration and misbranding of vinegar. V. S. * * * v. 75 Bar- 
rels * * * and 75 Barrels * * * of * * * Pure Cider 
Vinegar. Decree of condemnation. Product ordered released on 
¦bond. (F. & D. No. 8377. I. S. Nos. 12185-m, 12187-m. S. Nos. C-715, 
C-716.)
On July 30, 1917, the United States attorney for the District of Indiana, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court 
of the United States for said district libels for the seizure and condemnation 
of 75 and 75 barrels of a product purporting to be pure cider vinegar, remain- 
ing unsold in the original and unbroken packages at Vincennes, Ind., alleging 
that the article had been received on or about March 19 and March 23, 1917, hav- 
ing been shipped by the Banner Vinegar Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, and transported 
from the State of Ohio into the State of Indiana, and charging adulteration 
and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. A* portion of the 
product was labeled in part, " Melrose Brand Pure Cider Vinegar." The 
remainder was labeled in part, " Yale Brand Pure Cider Vinegar."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libels for the reason that it 
had mixed and packed with it distilled vinegar, or a solution of dilute acetic 
acid, which had been substituted in part for pure cider vinegar, so as to reduce, 
lower, and injuriously affect its quality.
Misbranding of the article was alleged for the reason that it was an imita- 
tion of pure cider vinegar and consisted in part of distilled vinegar, or a 
solution of dilute acetic acid, which had been substituted in part for pure cider 
vinegar and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of pure cider 
vinegar, when, in fact, it was not, and for the further reason that it was 
labeled and branded as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser 
into the belief that it was pure cider vinegar, when, in fact, it was not.
On October 6, 1917, the said Banner Vinegar Co., claimant, having admitted 
the allegations of the libels, judgments of condemnation were entered, and 
the claimant having paid the costs of the proceedings and executed bonds in 
the aggregate sum of $1,500, in conformity with section 10 of the act, it was 
ordered by the court that the product should be released to the said claimant.
CARL VROOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.