18907. Adulteration and Misbranding of cane sirup.    U. S. v. 78 Cans, et
al., of Cane Sirup.     Default decree of destruction entered.     (F. &
D. No. 26879.    1. S. Nos. 36631, 36632, 36633, 36634.    S. No. 5066.)
Examination of samples of cane sirup from the shipment herein described 
having shown that the article contained added undeclared glucose and sugar 
sirup, and that, with respect to portions of the product, the cans contained 
less than the volume declared on the label, the Secretary of Agriculture reported 
the matter to the United States attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi.
On or about September 9, 1931, the United States attorney filed in the 
District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid a libel praying 
seizure and condemnation of 316 cans of the said cane sirup, remaining in the 
original unbroken packages at Natchez, Miss., alleging that the article had been 
shipped by A. O. Cunningham, from Lafayette, La., on or about July 16, 1931, 
and had been transported from the State of Louisiana into the State of 
Mississippi, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the food 
and drugs act as amended. The article was labeled in part: (Cans) " Open 
Kettle Pure Cane Syrup 3 Qts. 8 Fid. Ozs. [or " 1 Qt., 1 Pt., 4 Fid. Ozs.," " 1 Pt. 
10 Fid. Ozs.," or -16 Fid. Ozs."] Packed by A. O. Cunningham * * * La- 
fayette, La."
It was alleged in the libel that the article was adulterated in that added 
undeclared glucose and sugar sirup had been mixed and packed therewith so 
as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength, and had 
been substituted in part for the said article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement "Open Kettle 
Pure Syrup," borne on the labels of the product, and the statements, "3 Qts. 
8 Fid. Ozs.," with respect to 78 cans of the article, and "16 Fid. Ozs.," with 
respect to 150 cans of the said article, were false and misleading and deceived 
and misled the purchaser. Misbranding was alleged with respect to all the said 
product for the further reason that the article was offered for sale under the 
distinctive name of another article. Misbranding was alleged with respect to 
the said 78-can lot and the 150-can lot for the further reason that it was in 
package form and the quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously 
marked oh the outside of the package, since the statement made was incorrect.
On November 19, 1931, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg- 
ment was entered finding the product subject to confiscation and forfeiture, and 
ordering that it be destroyed by the United States marshal.
ARTHTTB. M. HTDE, Secretary of Agriculture.