8991. Adulteration and misbranding of cocoa. U. S. * * * v. 70 Pounds * * * 164^?
Pounds * * * and 19 Packages of Cocoa. Default decree of condemnation,?
forfeiture, and destruction. (F. & D. Nos. 10629, 10G30, 10631, 10632, 10633, 10034. I. S.?
Nos. 15784-r, 15785-r, 15786-r, 15787-r, 15788-r, 15789-r.   S. No. E-1545.)
On June 17, 1919, the United States attorney for the Northern District of West?
Virginia, 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?
70 pounds of cocoa in -|-pound packages, 164|- pounds of cocoa in -^-pound packages,?
and 19 packages of cocoa of J pound each, remaining in the original unbroken?
packages at Martinsburg, W. Va., alleging that the article had been shipped on or?
about March 27,1919, by the National Cocoa Mills, New York, NT Y., and transported?
from the State of New York into the State of West Virginia, and charging adulteration?
and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in?
part: "My Own Cocoa Valuable Premiums Gold Medals My Own Pure Cocoa?
The Cocoa contained in this package is Positively High Grade * * *," (stamped on?
side in illegible type) "My own cocoa compound containing cocoa, sugar, cornstarch,"?
(marked, as the case may be, either) "Net Weight |- pound" (on the packages labeled?
as containing -^ pound, or) "Net Weight ? pound " (on the packages labeled as contain-?
in J pound).
Adulteration of the article was alleged in substance in the libel for the reason that?
the substances starch and sugar had been mixed! and packed [with, and substituted]?
wholly or in part for, cocoa, and for the further reason that said article was mixed in?
a manner whereby damage and inferiority in the quality thereof were concealed, the?
inferiority thereof being concealed by reason of the said packages being labelofl with?
the word "Cocoa" in prominent letters upon the front and back panels of thr? pack-
346	
BUREAU  OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 110.
ages, and with the words "Pure Cocoa" on each side panel of said packages,?
in very conspicuous type, and being labeled further by the words "The cocoa?
contained in this package is positively high grade," in conspicuous type, whereas there?
was no mark or statement stamped upon said packages in any legible manner to show?
the extent to which the contents of such packages were adulterated or impure, and?
the only statement stamped upon said package being a statement in illegible type for?
the purpose of deceiving any prospective purchaser thereof as to the true contents of?
the said package, said illegible words being in an inconspicuous position upon said?
packages, as follows, "My own cocoa compound containing cocoa, sugar, cornstarch,"?
and the conspicuous label aforesaid upon said packages not being sufficiently cor??
rected by, the said inconspicuous statement aforesaid so as to give a purchaser true?
information as to the adulterated character of the ajticle contained in said packages.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the conspicuous statements contained?
as aforesaid on said packages were false and misleading, and intended to deceive pur??
chasers, and for the further reason that said article was an imitation of, and was offered?
for sale under the distinctive name of, pure cocoa, when the same was not pure, but?
was adulterated as hereinbefore set out. Misbranding was alleged for the further?
reason that the packages contained food in package form, and the quantity of the?
contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package as?
to their respective true weights.
On October 1, 1920, no claimant having appeared for the property, an order was?
entered by the court finding the same adulterated and misbranded and ordering its?
destruction by the United States marshal.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.