9561. Adulteration and Misbranding of red kidney bKans.    U.  S.     *     *     *
v. 17 Cases, 170 Cases, and 176 Cases * * * of So-Called Red 
Kidney BKans. Decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product 
released under bond. (E\ & D. Nos. 12218, 12219, 12220. I. S. Nos. 
8764-r, 8765-r, 8766-r.     S. Nos.  C-1767, C-1768, C-1769.)
On February 24, 1920, the United States attorney for the District of Kansas, 
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 17 cases, 170 cases, and 176 cases, more or less, of so-called red kidney beans, 
remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages, in part at Wichita and in 
part at Winfield, Kans., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Mar- 
shall Canning Co., Marshalltown, Iowa, on or about September 18, September 
25, and December 11, 1919, respectively, and transported from the State of Iowa 
into the State of Kansas, and charging adulteration and misbranding in viola- 
tion of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part: (Cans) 
" Uncle William Brand Red Kidney Beans * * * Packed by Marshall Can- 
ning Company, Marshalltown, Iowa."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libels for the reason that long 
cranberry beans had been mixed and packed with, and substituted wholly or 
in part for, the said article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the above-quoted labeling and 
the design of red kidney beans, appearing on the cans and cases containing the 
article, were false and misleading and calculated to deceive and mislead the 
purchaser into the belief that the said article was red kidney beans, when, in 
truth and in fact, it was long cranberry bKans. Misbranding was alleged for 
the further reason that the article was an imitation of, and was sold under 
the distinctive name of, another article.
On March 14, 1921, the Marshall Canning Co., Marshalltown, Iowa, having 
entered an appearance as claimant for the property, judgment of condemnation 
and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product 
be released to said claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and 
the execution of bonds in the aggregate sum of $750, in conformity with section 
10 of the act, conditioned in part that the product be rebranded so as to show 
its true nature and character.
C. W. PTJGSIJEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.