NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2580.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
U. S. v. Atlantic Coast Distilling- Co.    Plea of nolo contendere.    Fine, $25.
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF WHISKY.
On October 1, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Southern 
District of Florida, 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 Atlantic Coast Distilling Co., Jack- 
sonville, Fla., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the 
Food and Drugs Act, on March 27, 1912, from the State of Florida 
into the State of Georgia, of a quantity of whisky which was adul- 
terated and misbranded. The product was labeled: " Southern 
Whiskey,  from   Southern  Distilling  Company,  Jacksonville,  Fla.
* * * Proof 50. Alcoholic strength 25%. Pure corn whiskey 
reduced in proof by the addition of distilled water only. Colored 
with pure burnt sugar. Contains a small percentage of capsicum 
which doctors regard as the best stomach stimulant known."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry 
of this Department showed the following results: Alcohol (per cent 
by volume), 24.7; solids (parts per 100,000 of 100 proof alcohol), 
82.4; caramel, present; capsicum, present. Adulteration of the prod- 
uct was alleged in the information for the reason that it was mixed 
with capsicum in a manner whereby its inferiority was concealed. 
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement " Southern 
Whiskey," borne in large type on the label of the product, was false 
and misleading, in that it conveyed to the purchaser the impression 
that said product was genuine whisky, of standard strength, or not 
less than 80 proof, when, in truth and in fact, it was a raw corn 
whisky reduced to 50 proof, and containing capsicum. Misbranding 
was alleged for the further reason that the statement on the label 
thereof that the product was 50 proof and 25 per cent alcohol 
strength, and contained capsicum, in such an inconspicuous manner 
at the bottom of the label, tended to make said label misleading and 
deceptive to the purchaser.    Misbranding was alleged for the fur-
11100°—No. 2580—13
ther reason that the product was branded so as to deceive and mis- 
lead the purchaser in that it was labeled in large type " Southern 
Whiskey " so as to mislead and deceive the purchaser into the belief 
that it was of standard strength or not less than 80 proof, whereas, 
in truth and in fact, it was only 50 proof whisky, containing capsi- 
cum, and only 24.7 per cent of alcohol.
On December 19, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of 
nolo contendere to the information and the court imposed a fine 
of $25.
B. T. GALLOWAY, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C.3 September 12, 1913.
2580
o