NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1188.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION  AND  MISBRANDING  OF  LEMON  FLAVOR.
At the November term, 1910, of the United States Circuit Court 
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the United States Attorney for 
said district, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
filed information in said Circuit Court against Charles Dennery, 
alleging shipment by him, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on 
or about December 20, 1909, from the State of Louisiana into the 
State of Texas, of a quantity of so-called lemon flavor which was 
adulterated and misbranded. The product was labeled: "Special 
Lemon Flavor strengthened with citral and artificially colored. 
Charles Dennery, Bakers and Confectioners Supplies, Utensils and 
Machinery, New Orleans, U. S. A. Guaranteed by Charles Dennery, 
New Orleans, U. S. A., under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 
1906."
Analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Depart- 
ment of Agriculture of a sample of this product showed the following 
results: Specific gravity, 15.6° C, 0.9420; alcohol, per cent by 
volume, 45.5; solids, 0.10 gram; oil, per cent by volume, by polariza- 
tion, 0.15, by precipitation, none; citral, per cent by weight 0.241; 
color, coal-tar dye, probably Naphthol Yellow S. Adulteration was 
alleged for the reason that there had been mixed and packed with 
said product an imitation lemon flavor mixed with citral which con- 
tained no lemon oil, so as to lower and reduce the quality and strength 
of said article. Adulteration was further alleged for the reason that 
the imitation lemon flavor mixed with citral and containing no lemon 
oil had been substituted for the genuine article—lemon extract. 
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the label bore the state- 
ment that the article was a lemon flavor, which was false and mis- 
leading, and calculated to deceive and mislead the purchaser into
16968°—No. 1188—11
believing that it was genuine lemon extract or flavor, when in fact the 
article was not a genuine lemon extract or flavor, but an imitation 
thereof. Misbranding was further alleged for the reason that said 
product was an imitation of and sold under the distinctive name of 
another article, to wit, lemon extract or flavor, when in fact it was 
not genuine lemon extract or flavor, but an imitation thereof.
On January 10, 1911, the defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined 
$10 and costs.
W. M. HAYS, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, November 1, 1911.
1188
o