134(54. Adulteration and misbranding of preserves. U. S. v. 33 Cases of 
Orange Marmalade Preserves, et al. Decree of condemnation 
and forfeiture. Products released under bond. (F. & D. No. 19973. 
I. S. Nos. 17238-v to 17242-v, incl.    S. No. E-5255.)
On April 22. 1925, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Virginia, 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 33 cases of orange marmalade preserves, 37 
cases of pineapple preserves, 44 cases of peach preserves, 42 cases of straw- 
berry preserves, and 36 cases of rasplSerry preserves, remaining unsold in the 
original packages at Norfolk, Va., alleging that the articles had been shipped 
by George S. Murphy (Inc.), from New York, N. Y., in various consignments, 
namely, on or about September 8 and 13 and November 17, 1924, and January 
7. 1925. respectively, and transported from the State of New York into the 
State of Virginia, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation 
of the food and drugs act. The articles were labeled in part: " Honeydew 
Brand Pure Orange Marmalade" (or "Pineapple" or " Peach " or "Straw- 
berry" or "Raspberry") "Preserves * * * George S. Murphy Inc. New 
York.*'
Adulteration of the articles was alleged in the libel for the reason that a 
substance, pectin, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to 'reduce, 
lower, or injuriously affect their quality or strength, and had been substi- 
tuted wholly or in part for the said articles. Adulteration of the raspbery 
preserves was alleged for the reason that a substance, loganberry, had been 
substituted in whole or in part for raspberry.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the designations 
"Honeydew Pure Preserves" and "Pineapple," "Peach," Strawberry," "Rasp- 
berry" or "Orange Marmalade," as the case might be, borne on the labels, 
were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser, and for the 
further reason that the articles were offered for sale under the distinctive 
names of other articles.
On June 30, 1925, George S. Murphy (Inc.), New York, N. Y., having ap- 
peared as claimant for the property, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture 
was entered, and it was ordered by the court that the products be released 
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 they be relabeled, after proper concentration, 
" Preserves " with a plain and conspicuous statement of added pectin and acid.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
? " ?' 0)      v-
On or about February 10, 1925, the United States attorney for the Eastern 
District of Arkansas, 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 100 sacks of gray shorts, at Little Rock. Ark., 
alleging that the article had been shipped by the Kansas Flour Mills Co' 
from Kansas City, Mo., on or about December 22, 1924, and transported from 
the State of Missouri into the State of Arkansas, and charging adulteration 
and misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act. The article was 
labeled in part: (Tag) "Grey Shorts & Wheat Screenings * * * Manu- 
factured by The Kansas Flour Mills Company Kansas City, Mo."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that brown 
shorts had been substituted wholly or in part for the said article, and in that 
it was mixed in a manner whereby damage or inferiority was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the designation " Grey Shorts 
& Wheat Screenings" was false and misleading and deceived and misled the 
purchaser.
On June 26, 1925, the Darragh Co., Little Rock, Ark., having appeared as 
claimant for the property and having consented to the entry of a decree, judg- 
ment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the 
court that the product be released to the said claimant upon payment of the 
costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of $100. in 
conformity with section 10 of the act, conditioned that it be relabeled in part: 
" Wheat Brown Shorts and Ground Screenings."
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.