NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2769.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
IT. S. v. John Burnett & Co.    Plea of guilty.    Fine, $25.
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF ORANGE EXTRACT.
On April 13, 1910, the United States Attorney for the District of 
Massachusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
filed in the District Court of the United States for said district an 
information against John Burnett & Co., a corporation, Boston. 
Mass., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the Food 
and Drugs Act, on May 8, 1909, from the State of Massachusetts into 
the State of Pennsylvania, of a quantity of so-called orange extract 
which was adulterated and misbranded. The product was labeled: 
" John Burnett's Pure Extract of Orange * * * Prepared by 
John Burnett & Co., 37 Central St., Boston, U. S. A."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry 
of this Department showed the following results: Specific gravity 
(15.6° C. /15.6° C), 0.8660; alcohol (per cent by volume), 76.64; 
methyl alcohol (per cent by volume), none; solids, 0.07 per cent; 
oil (per cent by volume): (a) By polarization, factor 5.3, 2.29, (b) 
by precipitation, 2.5; index of refruition of oil at 20° C. 1.4718; 
volume: Bottle 1, 4 fluid ounces; bottle 2, 3.9 fluid ounces. Adul- 
teration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason 
that a substance, that is to say, a dilute extract of orange, had been 
mixed and packed with it so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously 
affect its quality and strength; and further, in that a dilute extract 
of orange had been substituted in part for the said extract of orange. 
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that there was upon the 
container of the product a label upon which appeared a statement
25457°—No. 2769—14
regarding the substances, to wit, " John Burnett's Pure Extract of 
Orange," which statement was false and misleading in a certain par- 
ticular, that is to say, in the particular in said statement, " Pure Ex- 
tract of Orange," whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not a pure 
extract of orange, but was a dilute extract of orange. Misbranding 
was alleged further for the reason that the product was offered for 
sale and was sold under the distinctive name of another article, that 
is to say, under the name of a pure extract of orange, whereas, in 
truth and in fact, it was not a pure extract of orange. Misbranding 
was alleged for the further reason that there was upon the containers 
of the product a label upon which appeared a statement regarding 
the substance, to wit, the statement "John Burnett's Pure Extract 
of Orange," which said statement would lead a purchaser to believe 
that the product was a pure extract of orange, whereas, in truth and 
in fact, it was not a pure extract of orange but a dilute extract of 
orange.
On May 9, 1910, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty 
to the information and the court imposed a fine of $25.
B. T. GALLOWAY, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C.5 January 6,1914-
2769
o