2822. Adulteration and misbranding of peach brandy. U. S. v. Emil Nathan and E. D. Ull-?
man (American Supply Co.). Pleas of guilty. Fine, $ 10 and costs. (F. & D. No. 3301.?
I. S. No. 14989-c.)
On July 6, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the?
United States for said district an information against Emil Nathan and E. T>. Ullman,?
copartners, doing business under the firm name and style of American Supply Co.,?
St. Louis, Mo., alleging shipment by said defendants, in violation of the Food and?
Drugs Act, on or about June 2, 1911, from the State of Missouri into the State of Illi??
nois, of a quantity of peach brandy which was adulterated and misbranded. The?
product was labeled: "XX Peach Brandy Compounded with grain distillate." (On?
strip label of cork) "American Supply Co. Memphis, Tenn." and "See that this?
seal is unbroken."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this Department?
showed the following results:
Solids (grams per 100 cc)?
    0.173
Sweet, yellow, no flavor.
Esters as ethyl acetate (grams per 100 liters)?
    19.36
Alcohol (per cent by volume)?
    39.40
Methyl alcohol?
   None.
Color, no coal tar, no turmeric, all water-soluble, appears artificial.
Volatile acids as acetic (grams per 100 liters)?
       3.9
Ash (grams per 100 cc)?
    0.003
Keducing sugars (grams per 100 cc)?
0.0114
Flavor indicates absence of peach, not like brandy.
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that it?
was labeled and sold as "peach brandy compounded with grain distillate," whereas?
a substance, to wit, grain distillate diluted with water, had been mixed and packed?
with the product so as to, and it did, reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality?
and strength; and further in that the product was labeled and sold as peach brandy?
compounded with grain distillate, when a substance, to wit, grain distillate diluted?
with water, had been substituted wholly or in large part for the article. Misbranding?
was alleged for the reason that the statement upon the bottle and product, to wit,?
"Peach Brandy Compounded with grain distillate," was false and misleading because?
it deceived the purchaser thereof into the belief that it consisted principally of peach
56	
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY.	
[February,
branny, when, in truth, and in fact, it did not consist chiefly of peach brandy, but?
consisted principally of grain distillate diluted with water. Misbranding was alleged?
for the further reason that the product was labeled and branded as aforesaid so as to,?
and it did, deceive and mislead the purchaser, being labeled in large type "Peach?
Brandy" while the words "Compounded with grain distillate" were much smaller?
and of obscure type, and the product was thereby labeled so as to, and it did, mislead?
and deceive the purchaser into the belief that it consisted chiefly of peach brandy,?
whereas it consisted chiefly of grain distillate diluted with water.
On January 11, 1913, the defendants entered pleas of guilty to the information, and?
the court imposed a fine of $10 and costs.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, February 3, 1914-