32131. Adulteration and misbranding- of vinegar. U. S. v. Lyons Bros. Co., a Corporation. Plea of grnilty. Fine, S50 and costs. (F. & D. No. 17781. I. S. No. 9401-v.) On November 17, 1923, the United States attorney for the Northern Dis- trict of Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Distict Court of the United States for said district an information against the Lyons Bros. Co., a corporation, trading at Atlanta, Ga., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about May 10, 1923, from the State of Georgia into the State of Florida, of a quantity of vinegar which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled in part: " The Lyons Bros. Co. Gold Dust Vinegar Atlanta, Ga." Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- partment showed that it was distilled vinegar containing not more than 10 per cent of apple vinegar, colored with caramel. Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that a substance, to wit, diluted distilled vinegar, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been substituted in part for vinegar, which the said article purported to be. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason that the article was a product inferior to vinegar, to wit, a mixture composed in part of diluted distilled vinegar, and was artificially colored so as to simulate the appearance of vinegar and in a manner whereby its inferiority to vinegar was concealed. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Vinegar," borne on the barrel containing the article, regarding the said article, was false and misleading, in that it represented that the article consisted wholly of vinegar, and for the further reason that the article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it consisted wholly of vinegar, whereas, in truth and in fact, it did not so consist but did consist in part of diluted distilled vinegar, artificially colored. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was a product composed in part of diluted distilled vinegar, artificially colored, prepared in imitation of vinegar, and was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of an- other article, to wit, vinegar. On March 8, 1924, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs. C. F. MAKVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.