10012.?Adulteration    and    misbranding:    of    extra    dry    champagne    and
sparkling Burgundy. TJ. S. * * * v. 10 Drums, 50 Cases, and?
22 Cases * * * of Extra Dry Champagne * * * and 13?
Cases * * * of Sparkling Burgundy * * *. Consent de??
cree of condemnation and forfeiture with respect to 22 cases of?
extra dry champagne and 12 cases of sparkling Burgundy and?
products released under bond. Default decrees of condemnation,?
forfeiture, and destruction with respect to remainder. (F. & D.?
Nos. 13805, 13806, 13807. I. S. Nos. 1984-t, 1985-t, 1977-t, 1978-t. S. Nos.?
C-2555, C-255'8, C-2559.)
On October 29, 1920, the United States attorney for the Northern District of?
Illinois, act'ng 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
BUKEAU OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 131,
condemnation of 10 drums and 72 cases of extra dry champagne, nonalcoholic,?
and 12 cases of sparkling Burgundy, nonalcoholic, remaining unsold in the?
original unbroken packages at Chicago, 111., alleging that the articles had been?
shipped in part by H. G. Mumm & Co., New York, N. Y., July 28 and August 10,?
1920, respectively, and in part from Columbus, Ohio, September 1, 1920, and?
transported from the States of New York and Ohio, respectively, into the State?
of Illinois, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food?
and Drugs Act, as amended.
Adulteration of the articles was alleged in the libels for the reason that?
imitation products, artificially carbonated, had been mixed and packed with,?
and substituted wholly or in part for, nonalcoholic champagne and nonalcoholic?
sparkling Burgundy. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that?
the articles were artificially colored in a manner whereby damage or inferiority?
was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the articles bore labels, re??
spectively, in part as follows, " Unfermented H. G. Mumm & Company Extra?
Dry Champagne Non-Alcoholic. H. G. Mumm & Company, Distributors, Bor??
deaux, France, New York, Chicago," and " Non-Alcoholic H. G. Mumm & Com??
pany Sparkling Burgundy Style * * *," which labels were false and mis??
leading and deceived and misled the purchaser in that the said articles were?
not extra dry champagne and sparkling Burgundy. Misbranding was alleged?
for the further reason that the articles were imitations of, and sold under the?
distinctive names of, other articles, to wit, extra dry champagne and sparkling?
Burgundy, respectively. Misbranding of a portion of the extra dry champagne?
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 May" 20, 1921, the Steele-Wedeles Co., Chicago, 111., claimant, having ad??
mitted the allegations of the libel filed in the case of the 22 cases of extra dry?
champagne and 12 cases of sparkling Burgundy, and having consented to the?
entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it?
was ordered by the court that the said portion of the products be released to the?
claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of?
a bond in the sum of $1,000, in conformity with section 10 of the act, condi??
tioned in part that the articles be labeled in harmony with the Federal Food?
and Drugs Act. On October 6, 1921, no claimant having appeared for the re??
mainder of the extra dry champagne, judgments of condemnation and forfeiture?
were entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product be destroyed?
by the United States marshal.
C. W. PUGSLET, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.