10338.?Adulteration  and  misbranding of  orangeade  sirup.     U.   S.     *      *      *
v. 5 Cases of Orangeade Sirup * * *. Default decree of con??
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (P. & D. No. 15932. I. S. No.?
9331-t.     S. No. E-3735.)
On January 21, 1922, the United States attorney for the Eastern District?
of North Carolina, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed?
in the District Court of the United States for said district a libel for the?
seizure and condemnation of 5 cases of orangeade sirup, at Raleigh, N. C,?
alleging that the article had been shipped by the D. E. Reilly Co., Charleston,?
S. C, on or about October 6, 1921, and transported from the State of South?
Carolina into the State of North Carolina, and charging adulteration and?
misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The article was labeled?
in part: " Reilly's Orangeade Syrup Prepared Only By D. E. Reilly Company?
Charleston, S. C.    *    *
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that a?
substance, to wit, invert sugar sirup, flavored with orange oil and phosphoric?
acid, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce and lower and in??
juriously affect its quality and strength and had been substituted wholly or?
in "part for the said article. Adulteration was alleged for the further reason?
that the article was mixed and colored in a manner whereby damage or in??
feriority was concealed.
Misbranding was alleged in substance for the reason that the statements?
appearing on the bottle containing the article, to wit, " Reilly's Orange?
[Orangeade] Syrup Made by our own special method, from pure cane sugar,?
and the flavoring of choice Oranges, combined with Fruit Acid, and the addi??
tion of harmless color * * * " together with the design of an orange, was?
false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser. Misbranding?
was alleged for the further reason that article was an imitation of, and was?
offered for sale under the distinctive name of, another article.
On or about March 6, 1922, no claimant having appeared for the property,?
judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by?
the court that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.