14244. Adulteration  and. misbranding  of vinegar.     U.  S. v. John D. Bates.
Plea of guilty.     Fine, $20.     (F. & D. No. 19650.     I. S. No. 19487-v.)      -
On August 6, 1925, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
Arkansas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
John D. Bates, a member of the Ozark Fruit Co., a copartnership, Fort Smith, 
Ark., alleging shipment by said defendant, in violation of the food and drugs 
act, on or about July 11, 1924, from the State of Arkansas into the State of 
Oklahoma, of a quantity of vinegar which was adulterated and misbranded. 
The article was labeled in part: " ' Pride of the Ozarks ' Distilled-Apple And 
Sugar Vinegar Compound" (picture of apple) "Ozark Fruit Co., The Bates 
Organization Little Rock, Ark." 
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a compound consisting of distilled vinegar and sugar vinegar and con- 
taining a mere trace of apple vinegar, if any, had been substituted for apple 
vinegar, which the article purported to be, for the further reason that dis- 
tilled vinegar and sugar vinegar had been mixed and packed therewith so as 
to reduce and lower and injuriously affect its quality, and for the further 
reason that it had been colored with sugar vinegar so as to simulate apple 
vinegar, in a manner whereby damage and inferiority were concealed.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, "Apple 
Vinegar," in large prominent type, together with the pictorial design of an 
apple, borne on the label of the bottle containing the article, was false and 
misleading, in that they represented that the said article was apple vinegar, 
and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and 
mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was apple vinegar, whereas it 
was not apple vinegar but was a compound consisting' of distilled vinegar and 
containing but a trace of apple vinegar, if any, and the said article was not 
labeled so as to indicate plainly that it was a compound, in that the words 
" Compound," "And Sugar " appeared in small inconspicuous type. Misbrand- 
ing 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, to wit, 
apple vinegar.
On March 5, 1926, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine of $20.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.