3380.  Adulteration  and misbranding  of apple  brandy type.    17.  S.  v.   The?
F. P. Glnck Co.     Plea of sruilty.     Fine, $15 and costs.     (F.  & D. No.
5552.     I. S.  No.  19190-d.)
On March 24, 1914, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
Ohio, 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 F. P.?
Gluck Co., a corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging shipment by said company?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about June 15, 1911, from the?
Srate of Ohio into the State of Montana, of a quantity of apple brandy type?
which was adulterated and misbranded. The product was labeled- (On one?
end) "Apple Brandy Type." (On other end) "Brandy Type The F. P. Gluck?
Co., Wholesale Liquor Dealers 101 & 103 B. Pearl St., Cincinnati, O. This?
article is guaranteed under the National Pure Food Law not to be adulterated?
or misbranded. The Gluck Co., Cincinnati, O. The F. P. Gluck Co., Whole??
sale Liquor Dealers and Rectifiers 101 & 103 E. Pearl St., Cincinnati, O."?
"Stamp No. T 22537." (Shipping tag) "Judith Basin Commercial Co., Lewis-?
ton, Mont.    From The F. P. Gluck Co., Cincinnati, Ohio."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed the following results:
Proof?
86. 0
Sclids (parts per 100,000, 100? proof)?
39.0
Acids, total, as acetic (parts per 100,000, 100? proof)?
50.0
Esters, as acetic (parts per 100,000, 100" proof)?
36.7
Aldehydes, as acetic (parts per 100,000, 100? proof)?
   4.2
Furfural (parts per 100,000, 100? proof)?
   0.4
Fusel oil (A-M by regular method)  (parts per 100,000, 100? proof)?12. 9
Color insoluble in water (per cent)?
22.0
Color insoluble in amyl alcohol (per cent)?
12.0
Color, Marsh test: Natural color present.?
The product consists largely of neutral spirits.
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason?
that a substance, to wit, a mixture of apple,brandy and neutral spirits, had?
been substituted wholly or in part for a type of apple brandy which the article?
purported to be. Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the article of?
food bore as a part of the label thereof the following statement, to wit, "Apple
Supplement]    SERVICE  AND  REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	587
Brandy Type," which said statement was false and misleading, in that it pur??
ported and represented to purchasers that said article was a type of apple?
brandy, whereas,-in truth and in fact, it was not a type of apple brandy, but?
was a mixture of apple brandy and neutral spirits. Misbranding was alleged?
for the further reason that the article of food was labeled and branded so as?
to mislead and deceive the purchaser, being labeled and branded "Apple Brandy?
Type," thereby purporting and representing that said article was a type of?
apple brandy, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not a type of apple brandy,?
but was a mixture of apple brandy and neutral spirits.
On March 30, 1914, the defendant company entered its plea of guilty to the?
information and the court imposed a fine of $15, with costs of $15.60.
D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 24, 1914-