18844. Adulteration and  Misbranding of  fruit  pectin jeUies.    JJ.  S.  v.  68
Cases of. Fruit Pectin Jellies. Decree of condemnation and for- 
feiture. Product released , under bond. (F. & JD. No. 26193. I. S. 
Nos. 14563, 14564, 14565, 14566.    S. No. 4504.)
Samples of fruit pectin jellies from the shipments herein .described having 
been found to contain little, if any, fruit juice, and to be short of the declared 
weight, the Secretary of Agriculture reported the matter to the United States 
attorney for the Southern District of Florida.
On April 11, 1931, the United States attorney filed in the District Court of 
the United States for the district aforesaid a libel praying seizure and con- 
demnation of 68 cases, each containing 24 glasses of fruit pectin jellies, remain- 
ing in the original unbroken packages at Tampa, Fla., alleging that the article 
had been shipped by the C. H. Musselman Co., from Biglerville, Pa., in part on 
or about June 26, 1930, and in part on or about August 21, 1930, and had been 
transported from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of Florida, and 
charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the food and drugs act 
as amended. The article was labeled in part: "Musselman's Brand Fruit 
Pectin Grape [or "Raspberry," "Strawberry," or "Currant"} Jelly Manu- 
factured by The C. H. Musselman Co., Biglerville, Pa., Net Contents 16 Ounces."
It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that a substance 
?deficient in fruit juice, in that it contained but a slight and negligible quantity, 
if any, of fruit juice, had been substituted for the said article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the following statements, (all 
flavors) "Net Contents 16 ounces," and "Fruit Pectin Grape Jelly," "Fruit 
Pectin Raspberry Jelly," " Fruit Pectin Strawberry Jelly" or " Fruit Pectin 
Currant Jelly," together with the design or device showing cuts of grapes, 
raspberries, strawberries, or currants, as the case might be, borne on the labels, 
were false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser when applied 
to an article containing but a slight and negligible quantity, if any, of the juice 
of the fruits named. Misbranding was alleged for the "further reason that the 
articles were offered for sale under the distinctive names of other articles; and 
f;or the further reason that they were in package form and the quantity of the 
contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the pack- 
ages, since the statement made was not correct.
On September 1, 1931, the C. H. Musselman Co., Biglerville, Pa., having ap- 
peared as claimant for the property, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture 
was entered, and it was ordered by tie court that the product be released to the 
said claimant upon payment of costs and the execution of a bond in the sum of 
$500, conditioned in part that it be relabeled, and should not be sold or dis- 
posed of contrary to the Federal food and drugs act. or the laws of any State, 
Territory, district, or insular possession.
ABTHTJB M. HYDE, Secretary of Agriculture.