S02". Ad-alteration aud misbranding of Green Mountain Syrup, If. S.?
P * * v. Sdaddei' Syrup Co., a Corporu.a.tion.. Plest. of guilty. Bis-?
charged upon payment of costs.     (P. & D. No. 9111.     I.  S. No. 8734?p.)
On December 31, 1919, the United States attorney for the Northern District of?
Illinois*, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district an information against the?
Scudder Syrup Co., a corporation, Chicago, 111., alleging shipment by said de??
fendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about Octo??
ber 12, 1917, from the State of Illinois into the State of Alabama, of a quantity?
of an article, labeled in part " Green Mountain Syrup Scudder Syrup Co.?
Chicago," which was adulterated and misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it was composed principally of corn sirup and cane sirup.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in substance in the information for the?
reason that a mixture composed of corn sirup and cane sirup had been substi??
tuted in whole or in part for Green Mountain sirup, to wit, maple sirup, which?
the article purported to be.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance in the information for?
the reason that the statement, to wit, " Green Mountain Syrup," borne on the?
containers containing the cans which contained the article, regarding- it and the?
ingredients and substances contained* therein, was false and misleading in that?
it represented that the article was Green Mountain sirup, to wit, maple sirup,?
and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and?
mislead the purchaser into the belief that the article was Green Mountain sirup,?
to wit, maple sirup, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not Green Mountain?
sirup, to wit, maple sirup, but was a mixture composed of corn sirup and cane?
sirup. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that it was food in?
package form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously?
marked on the outside of the package.
On June 22, 1920, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf?
of the defendant company, and the court ordered its discharge on the payment?
of the costs of the proceedings.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.,
26	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 91,