NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2258.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Pood and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF SO-CALLED APPLE BRANDY.
On November 11, 1912, the United States Attorney for the South- 
ern District of Ohio, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agri- 
culture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said dis- 
trict an information against the Old Spring Distilling Co., a corpora- 
tion, Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging shipment by said company, in viola- 
tion of the Food and Drugs Act, on October 16, 1912, from the State 
of Ohio into the State of Alabama, of a quantity of so-called apple 
brandy which was adulterated and misbranded. The product was 
labeled: "Apple Brandy."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry 
of this Department showed the following results: Proof (degrees 
corrected 60° F.), 95.7; solids (grams per 100 liters, 100 proof), 19.6; 
acids (grams per 100 liters, 100 proof), 7; esters (grams per 100 liters, 
100 proof), 15.9; aldehydes (grams per 100 liters, 100 proof), 1.6; 
furfural (grams per 100 liters, 100 proof), 0.2; fusel oil (grams per 
100 liters, 100 proof), 13; color, natural; residue from distillation, 
aging indicated. Adulteration of the product was alleged in the in- 
formation for the reason that a certain substance, to wit, neutral 
spirits, had been substituted in part for what the product by its label 
and brand purported to be, to wit, apple brandy. Misbranding was 
alleged for the reason that the label and brand on the product bore 
a statement regarding it, and the ingredients and substances con- 
tained therein, which said statement, to wit, "Apple Brandy," was 
false, misleading, and deceptive, in that said statement purported and 
represented the product to be a pure apple brandy, whereas, in fact, 
it was not so, but was in fact a mixture of unlike substances, to wit,
77869°—No. 2253—13
apple brandy and neutral spirits. Misbranding was alleged for the 
further reason that the product was labeled and branded as aforesaid 
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser thereof, in that said label 
was calculated to convey the impression and create the belief in the 
mind of the purchaser that it consisted wholly of apple brandy, 
whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not apple brandy, but was a mix- 
ture of unlike substances, to wit, apple brandy and neutral spirits, 
said neutral spirits being from a source other than apples.
On November 14, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of 
guilty to the information and the court imposed a fine of $25, with 
costs of $14.35.
W. M. HAYS, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, January £5, 1913.
2253
o