S6S)-i. Adulteration and misbraiuling; of vineprai*. V. S. * * * v. 72 Bav-?
i-els of Cider Vinegar. Consent decree o? condemnation and for??
feiture. Product released on bond. (F. & D. No. 12425, I. S. Ko.?
G60-1-.     S. Iso. E-207G.)
On April 28, 1920, the United States attorney for the District of Connecticut,?
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 72 barrels of an article labeled in part, " R. O. Co. Cider Vinegar Made?
from Apple Juice Reduced to four per cent acidity Mfd. by E W D RISE-,?
DORPH * * *," remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at Dan-?
bury, Conn, alleging that the article had been shipped on or about March 13,?
1920, by the Powell Vinegar Corp., Canandaigua, N. Y., and transported from?
the State of New York into the State of Connecticut, and charging adulteration?
and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act.
Adulteration of the article was alleged-in the libel for the reason that acetic?
acid or distilled vinegar and ash material had been mixed and packed with, and?
substituted wholly or in part for, the product, so as to reduce, lower, and in??
juriously affect its quality and strength.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the labels upon each of the bottles?
containing the article bore certain statements and words regarding the vinegar?
which were false and misleading, that is to say, said labels bore the following?
words, " Cider Vinegar made from Apple Juice," which statement and words were?
intended to be of such a character as to induce the purchaser to believe that the?
product was pure cider vinegar, when, in truth and in fact, it was not. Mis??
branding was alleged 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 cider vinegar.
On June 9, 1920, the Powell Vinegar Corp., Canandaigua, N. Y., claimant,?
having consented that the issues in the cause might be found for the United
128	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 104,
States, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered?
by the court that the product might be redelivered to said claimant upon pay??
ment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of?
$2,400, in conformity with section 10 of the act.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.