Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-10-05
HOUSEWIVES, SEE FEDERAL
War ON M|SbRANDED FOOD

This corporation, of St. Adams, VT,
was fined $50 for shipping from Yer.
mont into Massachusetts a quantity
of canned lima beans which were
deemed m%isbranded. / Misbranding
was alleged because the label tended
to indicate that the contents were
frsh lima beans, when in fact they
were dried soaked lima beans.
2. United States V. Abraham Sap.
ovitz and Abraham E. Sperber.
These co-partners. doing business
under the firm name of Rhode Island
Ainegar Manufacturing Co., Provi.
dence, R. l., were fined $50 for the
shipment from Rhode Island into
Massachusetts OF vinegar which was
adjudged to be adulterated and mis-
branded. Adulteration was alleged
because it contained a certain added
poisonous ingredient, for.ni; acid.
Misbranding was alleged because the
statement on the label, distilled Yin
eyer" was misleading, the product
icing, in fact, a dilute solution Ct
commercial acetlc acIi containing
fermic acid. The coure imposed d
fine Of $50 on SapoyItz.
For shipping from Mississippi to
kehsas oysters in cas- bearing the
picture Of an Indian and labeled,
Seminole Brand Oysters" the Bar.
asaria Canning Co., a coroortalion of
Biloxi, Miss, was fined S25, according
to a recently issued NoLi,e of Julg.
m2nt of the department Of agrioNt.
tue
Adulteration of the Jyst,.s was al
legged because an excessive o If
water had been mixed AMI packed
With them so as to injuri0usly a..
1e.t their quality. Mlsbraniing was
alleged because the label, 'Cova Oys-
F., ters,' was false and misleading, as.
it conveyed the impression that the
Product was canned oysters packed
without the use of an excessive
amount of water, when such was not
the fact.
Other Notices of Judgnen. issued
~ the department are as follows:
l. United States v. Kellogg Manu-
featuring Company of Keokuk, Iowa,
fer shipment into Illinois OF a GUAM
tity Of sugar butter alleged to be
adulterated and misbranded. Adul-
terated and m~isbranded. Ad%ulteration
was charged because glucose had
been mixed and packed with the
product so as to lower It's quality and
strength. Misbranding was alleged
because the product was labeled con.
spicuously, "a compound of sugar
with an imitation maple flavor" An.
alysis also showed that the product
contained more than the amount of
benzoate of soda stated on the label,
which was a further reason for the
allegation Of misbranding. The court
imposed a fine Of SIS ond costs.
-. United States v. louisville CT.
der & Vinegar Works OF Louisville,
KY, for shipment into Illinois OF so
called sugar vinegar alleged to be
adnlterated and misbranded. Adult
%teration was charged because a mix
iture of glucose, sugar and distilled
vinegars had been added. Misbrand-
ing was also charged because the
product was so labeled us to deceive
the purchaser into the belief that 1t
was pure sugar vinegar whereas each
barrel contained, according to the
governments analysis a mixture, of
sugar vinegar, distilled vinegar and
lgluCose:
3. United States VI, Atlantic Coast
Disabling Company Of Jacksonville,
Fla, for shipment into Georgia OF
whiskey alleged to- be adulterated
and misbranded.t The product ap.
peared to be adulterated, according
to the governments finding, because
it was mixed with capsicum in a
manner whereby Its inferiority was
concealed. M~isbTanding was charged
because the label which stated
Southern Whiskey" In large type
false, Al It conveyed the Impression
that said product was genuine wiis-