NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2619.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
U. S. v. Royal Manufacturing- Co.   Plea of guilty.   Fine, $50 and costs.
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF ORANGE EXTRACT.
On March 13, 1913, the United States Attorney for the Western 
District of Missouri, 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 Royal Manufacturing Co., a cor- 
poration, Kansas City, Mo., alleging shipment by said company, in 
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about July 19. 1912, 
from the State of Missouri into the State of Kansas, of a quantity 
of extract of orange which was adulterated and misbranded. The 
product was labeled: " Daugherty's Royal High Grade Extract 
Orange. 2 Ounces. For flavoring Ice Cream, Cakes, Jellies, Ices. 
Pastries, etc. Guaranteed under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30. 
1906. Serial no. 9854. Manufactured by Royal Manufacturing Co.. 
Kansas City, Mo., U. S. A."
Analysis of a sample of the product of the Bureau of Chemistry 
of this Department showed the following results: Specific gravity 
at 15.6° O, 0.9584; alcohol (per cent by volume), 34.8; methyl alco- 
hol (per cent by volume), none; solids by drying at 100° C. (grams 
per 100 cc), 0.37; volume (declared 2 ounces), 2 ounces; orange oil, 
by polarization, none; by precipitation, none; citral. by weight 
(Hiltner method), 0.02 per cent; (Chace method), 0.066 per cent.
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for 
the reason that a dilute terpeneless solution of orange extract had 
been mixed and packed therewith in such a manner as to reduce and 
lower and injuriously affect its quality and strength; and further, 
in that said dilute terpeneless solution of orange extract had been 
substituted wholly or in part for genuine orange extract. Misbrand- 
ing was allege 1 for the reason that the statement " High grade ex- 
tract orange " on the label was false and misleading in that it con- 
veyed the impression that the product was a genuine orange extract,
12013°—No. 2619—13
whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not such but was a dilute ter- 
peneless orange extract; and further, said product was misbranded 
in that it was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the 
purchaser, being labeled " High grade extract orange," thereby cre- 
ating the impression that it was a genuine orange extract, whereas, 
in truth and in fact, it was a dilute terpeneless orange extract.
On April 3, 1913, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty 
to the information and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.
B. T. GALLOWAY, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 23,1913.
2619
o