10827.?Adultei-ation  and  misbranding  of tea.    IT.  S. v. 480 Packages  and
200 Packages of King Brand Flowery Orange Pekoe Tea. Consent?
decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product released on bond?
for relabeling. (F. & D. No. 15933. I. S. Nos. 9395-t, 9396-t. S. No.?
E-3739.)
On February 2, 1922, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of?
South Carolina, 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 480 one-fourth-pound packages and 200 one-half-pound?
packages of King Brand Flowery Orange Pekoe tea, remaining in the original?
"unbroken packages at Charleston, S. C, alleging that" the article had been?
shipped on or about July 30, 1921, August 4, 1921, and December 29, 1921, by?
the Federal Tea Co., Baltimore, Md., and transported from the State of Mary??
land into the State of South Carolina, and charging adulteration and misbrand??
ing in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled in part:?
" King Brand Flowery Orange Pekoe Tea Packed Solely By Federal Tea Com??
pany, Inc. * * * Baltimore, Md. |-Pound" (or " 1-Pound ") " Net Weight?
When Packed."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that a?
grade or grades of tea other than Flowery Orange Pekoe had been mixed and?
packed with it so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality or?
strength and had been substituted wholly or in part for the article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the article was an imitation of?
and offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, to wit,?
Flowery Orange Pekoe tea, for the further reason that the statement on the?
labels, " Flowery Orange Pekoe Tea," was false and misleading and deceived?
and misled the purchaser, since the packages contained a grade or grades of?
tea other than Flowery Orange Pekoe tea, for the further reason that the state??
ment on the labels of the 200 packages, " 1-Pound Net Weight," was false and?
misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser, since the packages contained?
less than that amount, and for the further reason that the 200 packages were?
food in package form, and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and?
conspicuously marked on the outside of the package, since the statements made?
were not correct.
On March 2, 1922, the Federal Tea Co., claimant, having appeared for the?
property, it was ordered by the court that the product might be released and?
turned over to said claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceedings?
and the execution of bond in the sum of $100, in conformity with section 10 of?
the act, conditioned in part that the product be relabeled so as to meet the?
approval of this department and that the deficiency in the short weight cans?
be made up.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.