NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2745.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs let.)
U.   S.   v.   Magnus,   Mabee   &  Reynard.    Plea   of   guilty.   Fine,   $50.
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF OIL OF SWEET ORANGE.
On November 4, 1912, the United States Attorney for the South- 
ern District of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said 
district an information against Magnus. Maybee & Reynard, a cor- 
poration, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company, in 
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on June 30, 1911, from the 
State of New York into the State of Georgia, of a quantity of oil of 
sweet orange which was adulterated-and misbranded. The product 
was labeled: "Oil Orange Sweet H. P. Magnus & Lauer. Packed 
expressly for Hirsch & Pigman, Wholesale Druggist, Savannah, Ga. 
U. S. Serial No. 1245.    4 oz. Net Weight,    x x x "
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry 
of this Department showed the following results: Net weight, 3.774 
ounces; shortage, 5.6 per cent; specific gravity, 15.6/15.6° C, 0.8498; 
refruitive index 20?, 1.4723; optical rotation 20? (sodium light), 
89.19°; alcohol (boiling point 79-80°), 1.05 per cent by volume; 
citral (Hiltner), 1.19 per cent; total aldehydes (Chace), 2.06 per 
cent; refruitive index 10 per cent residue from vacuum distillation 
(20?), 1.4810; this sample appeared to be adulterated with alcohol 
and a lemon oil product. Adulteration of the product was alleged 
in the information for the reason that a substance, to wit, a mixture 
containing ethyl alcohol and a lemon oil product, had been mixed 
and packed therewith in such a manner as to reduce, lower, and in- 
juriously affect its quality and strength, and in that a substance, to 
wit, a mixture containing ethyl alcohol and a lemon oil product, had
15996°— No. 2745—14
been substituted wholly or in part for said article, to wit, sweet oil 
of orange. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the label 
and package of the product bore a statement regarding it and the 
ingredients and substances contained therein, to wit, " Oil Orange 
Sweetened," which said statement was false and misleading in that 
it created and conveyed the impression that the product was orange 
oil sweet, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was a mixture of ethyl 
alcohol and a lemon oil product. Misbranding was alleged for the 
further reason that the product was labeled and branded so as to 
deceive and mislead the purchaser, being labeled il Oil Orange 
Sweet," thereby purporting to be a genuine orange oil sweet, whereas, 
in truth and in fact, it was a mixture containing ethyl alcohol and a 
lemon oil product. Misbranding was alleged for the further rea- 
son that the package and label of the article bore a statement, to wit, 
" 4 oz. Net Weight," which said statement was false and misleading, 
because it misled and deceived the purchaser into believing that the 
product weighed 4 ounces net, whereas, in truth and in fact, it 
weighed less than 4 ounces net. Misbranding was alleged for the 
further reason that the product was labeled and branded so as to de- 
ceive and mislead the purchaser, being labeled " 4 oz. Net Weight," 
thereby purporting to weigh 4 ounces net, whereas, in truth and in 
fact, it weighed less than 4 ounces net. Misbranding was alleged 
for the further reason that the product was in package form and the 
contents thereof were stated in manner and form aforesaid upon the 
label and package in term of weight, that is to say, "4 oz. Net 
Weight," it thereby being represented that the contents weighed 4 
ounces net, whereas, in truth and in fact, said contents were less than 
4 ounces net.
On May 23, 1913, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty 
to the information and the court imposed a fine of $50.
C. F. MARVIN, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, October U, 1913.
2745
o