3564- Misbranding of vodka.   U. S. v. Herman Sinkowetsky and Moses Ludwak (Russian?
Transfer Monopole Co.).   Plea of guilty.   Fine, S35.   (F. &D. No. 5586.   I.S. No.3433-e.)
On June 19,1914, the United States attorney for the Southern 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 Herman Sinkowetsky and?
Moses Ludwak, copartners, trading under the firm name and style of the Russian?
Transfer Monopole Co., New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said defendants, in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on September 3, 1912, from the State of New?
York into the State of Massachusetts, of a quantity of so-called vodka which was mis-?
branded. The product was labeled: (Russian label, translated) "Government pure?
(or rectified) Spirits (or alcohol) 1/100 Vedro (or a certain Russian measure) Strength?
57?. Price, Spirits 12 K, Bottle 2 K, Total 14 K." ("K" means "kopec," a?
Russian coin.) (English label) "Monopole Vodka Russian Transfer Monopole Co."?
(Reverse Russian label, translated) "St. Petersburg Revenue Office. 12. 11. 1912.?
Government Whiskey.    Storehouse No. 1."
An investigation of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed that it was manufactured in the United States.
Misbranding of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that the?
statements " Government pure (or rectified) Spirits (or alcohol) 1/100 Vedro * * *?
Monopole Vodka Russian Transfer Monopole Co. St. Petersburg Revenue Office.?
Government Whiskey. Storehouse No. 1," appearing on the label aforesaid, regarding?
the article and ingredients and substances therein contained, were false and mis??
leading in that they indicated that the article was Russian vodka and a liquor produced?
in Russia and bottled under the supervision of the Russian Government, whereas,?
in truth and in fact, the said article was not Russian vodka and was not a liquor pro??
duced in Russia and bottled under the supervision of the Russian Government, but?
was a liquor manufactured in the United States. Misbranding was alleged for the?
further reason that the product was labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead?
the purchaser, being labeled as aforesaid, thereby indicating that the article was?
Russian vodka and a liquor produced in Russia and bottled under the supervision?
of the Russian Government, whereas, in truth and in fact, said article was not Russian?
vodka and was not a liquor produced in Russia and bottled under the supervision of?
the Russian Government, but was a liquor manufactured and bottled in the United?
States. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article purported to?
be a foreign product, to wit, a product of Russia, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was?
not a foreign product nor a product of Russia, but was a product of domestic manufac??
ture.
On July 2, 1914, a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the defendants and the?
court imposed a fine of $25.
CAEL VKOOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, January IS, 1915.
N. J. 3551-3600.]     SERVICE AND KEGULATOKY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	81