1.3300. Adulteration and misbranding of assorted preserves. IT. S. v. 40 
Cases and 75 Cases of Preserves. Decree of condemnation and 
forfeiture.     Product released under bond to be  relabeled.     (F.  &
D. No. 19186.    I. S. Nos. 10392-v, 23053-v, 23062-v.     S. No. C-4533.)
On November 20, 1924, the United States attorney for the District of Kan- 
sas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District 
?Court of the United States for said district a libel praying the seizure and 
condemnation of 40 cases, each containing 2 dozen 14%-ounce jars, and 75 
-cases, each containing 1 dozen 44-ounce jarg, of assorted preserves, remaining 
in the original unbroken packages at Arkansas City, Kans., alleging that the 
article had been shipped by the Goodwin Preserving Co., from Louisville, Ky., 
?on or about July 14, 1924, and transported from the State of Kentucky into 
the State of Kansas, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation 
of the food and drugs act as amended. The article was labeled in part: 
(Jar) "OB Brand Damson" (or "Raspberry" or "Strawberry" or "Black- 
berry" or "Peach" or "Cherry") "Preserves, With Apple Pectin * * * 
Goodwin Preserving Co. Incorporated Louisville, Ky. U. S. A.," the words 
"" With Apple Pectin " being in relatively small type.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that an 
acidified compound strawberry (damson, raspberry, blackberry, cherry, or 
peach), as the case might be, and pectin preserve had been mixed and packed 
therewith so as to reduce, lower, or injuriously affect its quality or strength 
and had been substituted wholly or in part for the said article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements in the labels 
" Strawberry," " Damson," " Raspberry," " Blackberry," " Cherry," or " Peach," 
as the case might be, " Preserves" were false and misleading and deceived 
and misled the purchaser and the said statements were not corrected by the 
inconspicuous statement "Apple Pectin." Misbranding was alleged for the fur- 
ther reason that the article was an imitation of and was offered for sale under 
the distinctive name of another article, for the further reason that it contained 
added tartaric acid, and 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 packages.
On January 9, 1925, the Goodwin Preserving Co., Louisville, Ky., having 
appeared as claimant for the property, 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 $1,000, in conformity with section 10 of 
the act, conditioned in part that it be relabeled to show its true contents.
R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.