NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2735.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs let.)
U. S. v. The Loewenthai -Strauss Co. Plea of grnilty to first and third 
counts of the information. Fine, $25 on eaeh of said counts, with costs. 
Second and fourth counts of the information nolle prosscd.
ADULTERATION AND ALLEGED MISBRANDING OF MONACCO BEANDY; 
ADULTERATION OF APPLE FLAVOR BRANDT; ALLEGED ADUL- 
TERATION OF APRICOT CORDIAL.
On December 27,1912, the United States Attorney for the Northern 
District of Ohio, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
filed an information in four counts against The Loewenthal-Strauss 
Co., a corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, alleging shipment by said com- 
pany, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act—
(1) On or about May 13, 1912, from the State of Ohio into the 
State of Pennsylvania, of a quantity of Monacco brandy" which was 
adulterated and alleged to have been misbranded. The product was 
labeled: "Monacco Brandy blend Cognac Type." (Case label) 
" Monacco Brand Liqueur Cognac." * * * Analysis of a sample 
of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this Department 
showed the following results: Proof, degrees, 88.6; solids, 116.7; 
acids, total, as acetic, 5.4; acids, fixed, as acetic, none; esters, volatile, 
as acetic, 23.8; aldehydes, volatile, as acetic, 3.0; furfural, practically 
none; fusel oil (A-M by Tolman), 15.5; color (degrees, Lovibond 
0.5-inch cell), 10; color (per cent insoluble in amyl alcohol), 100; 
paraldehyde test, positive. (Results are in parts per 100,000 cc of 
100 proof alcohol, except where otherwise indicated.) Adulteration 
of the product was alleged in the first count of the information for 
the reason that a substance, to wit, a mixture of brandy and neutral 
spirits, not cognac or cognac type of brandy, had been substituted 
wholly or in part for the true cognac brandy which the article pur- 
ported to be. Misbranding was alleged in the second count of the 
information for the reason that the statement on the label in promi-
15996°—No. 2735—14
nent type, "Brandy * * * Cognac * * *", was false and 
misleading as it conveyed the impression that the product was true 
cognac brandy, whereas, in fact, it was a mixture of neutral spirits 
and brandy other than cognac, and said false impression was insuffi- 
ciently corrected by the word " blend " in inconspicuous type below 
the word "brandy" and the word "type" in small print below the 
word "cognac" appearing On the label. Misbranding was alleged 
for the further reason that the product was labeled and branded so 
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was 
true cognac brandy, whereas it was a mixture of neutral spirits and 
brandy other than cognac.
(2) On or about March 27, 1912, from the State of Ohio into the 
State of Alabama, of a quantity of apple brandy which was adul- 
terated. This product was labeled: (On commercial head of barrel) 
"Apple Brandy"; (On stamp end) "Brandy Apple Flavor 18th 
Ohio Dist. No. E-338452 Loewenthal-Strauss Co. Cleveland, O." 
Analysis of a sample of this product by said Bureau showed the 
following results: Proof, degrees, 85.5; solids, 1.34; acids, total, as 
acetic
,
10; esters, as acetic, 23; aldehydes, as acetaldehyde, 1.9; fur- 
fural, none; fusel oil (A-M. by Na2S203), 39; color (degrees, Lovi- 
bond 0.5-inch cell), 2.8; color (per cent insoluble in water), 18; 
paraldehyde test for caramel, positive; caramel, Marsh test, positive. 
(Results are in parts per 100,000 cc of 300 proof alcohol, except 
where otherwise indicated.) Adulteration of the product was alleged 
in the third count of the information for the reason that a substance, 
to wit, neutral spirits from a source other than the apple, had been 
substituted wholly or in part for the apple brandy which the article 
purported to be.
(3) On or about March 27, 1912, from the State of Ohio into the 
State of Alabama, of a quantity of apricot cordial which was alleged 
to have been adulterated. This product was labeled: (On head of 
barrel) " Three Crown Apricot Cordial" (On stamp on other end of 
barrel) "Cordial Apricot Flavor 18th Ohio Dist. #E-338447— 
Loewenthal-Strauss Co., Cleveland, Ohio." Analysis of a sample of 
this product by said Bureau of Chemistry showed the following re- 
sults: Specific gravity 15.6°/15.6° C, 1.0509; alcohol (per cent by 
volume), 13.96; solids, indirect (grams per 100 cc), 17.83; non- 
sugar solids (grams per 100 cc), 0.28; sucrose, by Clerget (grams 
per 100 cc), 15.10; reducing sugar, as invert (grams per 100 cc), 2.45; 
polarization, direct, at 25° C, 56.5° V.; polarization, invert, at 25° C, 
—20.0° V.; ash (grams per 100 cc), 0.022; acid, as tartaric (grams 
per 100 cc), 0.15; volatile acid, as acetic (grams per 100 cc), 0.002;, 
Woodman and Newhall's test for caramel, positive; esters, as ethyl 
acetate (grams per 100 cc), 0.081; aldehydes, as acetaldehyde, trace;
2735
furfurol, trace; fusel oil (grams per 100 cc), 0.0075; hydrocyanic 
acid (Prussian blue test), none; benzaldehyde (phenol test), none. 
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the fourth count of the 
information for the reason that a substance, to wit, an imitation 
apricot cordial made from diluted alcohol, sweetened, colored, and 
flavored, had been substituted wholly or in part for the genuine 
apricot cordial which the article purported to be.
On December 27, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of 
guilty to the first and third counts of the information and the court 
imposed a fine of $25 on each of said counts, with costs. The second 
and fourth counts of the information were nolle pressed.
C. F. MARVIN, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, October 11, 1913.
2735
o