2854. Adulteration and misbranding of mace.   IT. S. v. Halligan Coffee Co.   Plea of guilty.?
Fine, $25 and costs.   (F. & D. No. 3954.   I. S. No. 17401-d.)
On October 12, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the?
United States for said district an information against the Halligan Coffee Co., a cor??
poration, Davenport, Iowa, alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the?
Pood and Drugs Act, on or about September 26,1911, from the State of Iowa into the?
State of Illinois, of a quantity of mace which was adulterated and misbranded. The?
product was labeled: "Reliable Pure Mace packed for The Reliable Tea Co., Moline,?
111."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this Department?
showed the following results:
Nonvolatile ether extract (per cent)?
 49.30
Total ash (per cent)?
    2.15
Ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid (per cent)?
    0. 23
Hefelmann's test for Bombay mace?
 Positive.
Waage 's test for Bombay mace?
 Positive.
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that a?
substance, to wit, Bombay mace, had been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce,?
lower, or injuriously affect its quality or strength, and in that a substance, to wit,?
Bombay mace, had been substituted in part for the article, mace. Misbranding was?
alleged for the reason that the statement, "Pure Mace," borne on the label was false?
and misleading because it deceived the purchaser into the belief that the product?
was composed entirely of true mace, whereas, in truth and in fact, it consisted in part?
of Bombay mace, which is not a true mace; and further, in that the product was so?
labeled and branded as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, being labeled and?
branded " Pure Mace," whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not pure mace but con??
sisted in part of Bombay mace, which is not a pure mace as that term is understood?
by the trade and public.
On April 25, 1913, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the informa??
tion and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, February 10,1914.
1914.1	SERVICE ANL> REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	
3855.	Adulteration and alleged misbranding of syrup.  TJ. S. v. Western Reserve Syrup Co.
Plea of guilty to count lot information.   Fine, $10 and costs.   Count 2 of Information?