28084. Adulteration  and misbranding of vinegar.     17.  S. v.  Canelea Trobridge
Worthington (Ridgeville Cider & "Vinegar Co.). Plea of guilty. Fine, 
$20 and costs. (F. & D. No. 38604. Sample Nos. 51547-B, 51557-B, 51558-B, 
51559-B.)
One of these lots of vinegar was short in volume, two were deficient in acid; 
and the other two lots were both short in volume and deficient in acid.
On June 22, 1937, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland, 
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district court 
an information against Canelea Trobridge Worthington, trading as Ridgeville 
Cider & Vinegar Co., Baltimore, Md., alleging that on or about May 5, 11, 13, 
21, 26, and 27, 1936, the said defendant had shipped from the State of Maryland 
into the State of Virginia quantities of vinegar which was adulterated and 
misbranded in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled 
in part: "Pure Apple Cider Vinegar Log Cabin * * * Manufactured and 
Guaranteed by Interstate Fruit. Product Co.    *    *    *   Baltimore, Md."
All lots with one exception were alleged to be adulterated in that a product 
deficient in acid and containing excessive water had been substituted in whole 
and in part for pure apple cider vinegar from apples only, which the article 
purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged in that the statements in the labeling, "Pure Apple 
Cider Vinegar Made From Apples Only," with respect to certain lots, 
and the statements "Contents 12 F. Oz.," "Full Strength," "Contents 1 Pt. 8 
Oz., Full Weight Guaranteed," "Contents 1 Pt. 8 Oz.," and "Pull Strength 
[or "Full Weight" or "W'g't"]" with respect to certain lots were false and mis- 
leading, and in that, said statements were borne on the labels so as to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser since the article, with the exception of one lot, 
was not pure apple cider vinegar made from apples only but was a product 
deficient in acid containing excessive water and in the case of certain lots 
the bottles contained less than declared.
Further misbranding was alleged with respect to certain lots in that the 
article wa.s food in package form and the quantity of contents was not 
plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the packages.
On November 19, 1937, a plea of guilty was entered by the defendant and 
the court imposed a fine of $20 and costs.
HAEKY L. BROWN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture,