123 87. Adulteration and misbranding1 of Grape Nip concentrate. V. S. v. 
1 Barrel of Grape Nip Concentrate. Decree of condemnation and 
forfeiture. Product released under bond. (F. & D. No. 18222. I, S. 
No. 12606-v.     S. No. E-4682.)
On December 21, 1923, the United States attorney for the District of Mary- 
land, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis- 
trict Court of the United States for said district a libel praying the seizure a nd 
condemnation of 1 barrel of Grape Nip concentrate, remaining in the original 
xmbroken package at Baltimore, Md., alleging that the article had been shipped 
hy the Orange Smash Co., from Birmingham, Ala., on or about November 20, 
1923, and transported from the State of Alabama into the State of Maryland, 
and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs 
Act. The article was labeled in part: (Tag) "From Orange Smash Company 
Birmingham, Alabama    *    *    *    Grape Nip Concentrate."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that an 
imitation grape flavor had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce 
and lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength and' had been sub- 
stituted wholly or in part for the said article. Adulteration was alleged for 
the further reason that the article had been mixed and colored in a manner 
whereby its damage or inferiority was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the label bore statements re- 
garding the article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, 
to wit, (tag) "Grape Nip * * * Contains Extract Of Ripe Grapes Sugar 
And Water & Tartaric Acid," (sticker) "Grape Nip," which were false and 
misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was alleged 
for the further reason that the article was an imitation of and was offered for 
sale under the distinctive name of another article.
On January 28, 1924, the Orange Smash Co., Birmingham, Ala., claimant, 
having admitted the allegations of the libel, judgment of condemnation and for- 
feiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that the product be re- 
leased to the said claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and 
the execution of a bond in the sum of $125, in conformity with section 10 of 
the act.
HOWARD M. GOEE, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.