13276. Misbrumdingr and alleg-ed adulteration of grape julep. XT. S v. 35 
Gallons of Grape Julep. Decree of condemnation and forfeiture. 
Product released under bond. (F. & B. No. 18976. I. S. No. 18991-v. 
S. No. C-4482.)'
On September 17, 1924, the United States attorney for the Northern District 
of Iowa, 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 and 
condemnation of 35 gallons of grape julep, at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, alleging that 
the article had been shipped by the Southern Fruit Julep Co., from Chicago, 
111., on or about April 3, 1924, and transported from the State of Illinois into 
the State of Iowa, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of 
the food and drugs act. The article was labeled in part: (Bottle) "Artificially 
Colored * * * Howel's Grape Julep Flavored with Grape Juice and Arti- 
ficial Grape Flavor * * * Manufactured By The Southern Fruit Julep 
Company Chicago, Ill., Philadelphia, Pa., Ft. Worth, Texas."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that an 
artificially-flavored and artificially-colored imitation product had been substi- 
tuted for the said article, and had been mixed and packed therewith so as to 
reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality and strength, and for the 
further reason that it had been colored in a manner whereby its inferiority was 
concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the designation " Grape Julep " 
was false and misleading and deceived or misled the purchaser when applied to 
an artificially-flavored and artificially-colored imitation product, and for the 
further reason that it was offered for sale under the distinctive name of 
another article.
On April 11, 1925, the Southern Fruit Julep Co., Chicago, Ill., having ap- 
peared as claimant for the property and having admitted the allegation of mis- 
branding, judgment of the court was entered, condemning and forfeiting the 
product as being misbranded. It was provided in the said decree that the 
product might be released to the said claimant upon payment of the costs of 
the proceedings and the execution of a good and sufficient bond, in conformity 
with section 10 of the act.
K, W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.