14575. Misbranding and alleged adulteration of coffee.    17.  S. v. 25 Cans,
et al., of Coffee. Decrees of condemnation and forfeiture. Prod- 
uct released under bond. (F. & D. Nos. 21093, 21098. 21100, 21101. 
I. S. Nos. 11732-x, 11733-x, 11739-x, 11742,-x. S. Nos. C-5151. C-5159. 
C-5160, C-5163.)
On May 26 and 31, 1926, respectively, the United States attorney for the 
Eastern District of Texas, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
filed in the District Court of the United States for said district libels praying 
seizure and condemnation of 225 cans of coffee, remaining in the original 
unbroken packages in various lots at Jacksonville, San Augustine, Joaquin, and 
Carthage, Tex., respectively, alleging that the article had been shipped by the 
Cuban Coffee Mills, from Shreveport, La., between the approximate dates of 
May 4 and May 26, 1926, and transported from the State of Louisiana into the 
State of Texas, and charging adulteration and misbranding in violation of the 
food and drugs act. The article was consigned in crates labeled in letters half 
an inch high, " Coffee & Chicory Blend." The crates were further labeled, 
" SPB Cuban " together with name of consignee and a statement of weight. 
The cans were labeled, " Packed by Cuban Coffee Mills, Inc., Shreveport, La."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libels for the reason that a 
substance, chicory, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce, lower 
or injuriously affect its quality and strength and had been substituted wholly or 
in part for the said article.

BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY v    ^[Supplement 222
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the designation '^ SPB " was 
false and misleading and deceived and misled the purchaser, and for the further 
reason that it was offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article.
On June 21 and 24, 1926, respectively, the Cuban Coffee Mills, Shreyeport, 
La., having appeared as claimant for the property, and the court having found 
that the material allegations of the libels were true, decrees were entered, 
adjudging the product misbranded and ordering its condemnation and forfeit- 
ure, and it was further ordered by the court that the product be released to the 
said claimant upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution 
of good and sufficient bonds, conditioned in part that it not be sold or otherwise 
disposed of contrary to law. 
"W. M. JAHDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.