4502.   Adulteration and misbranding- of brandy.    TJ. S.     *     *     *     v; Morand?
Bros., a coi-poration.    Plea of guilty..    Fine, Sj>25 and costs.     (F. & D.
No. 66&5.    I. S. No. 2187-h.)
On November 4, 1915, the United States attorney for the Northern District?
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
, Morand Bros., a corporation, Chicago, 111., alleging shipment by said company,?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about February 11, 1913, from?
the State of Illinois into the State of Indiana, of a quantity of brandy, which?
was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled, in part: (Retail?
package, neck label) " Napoleon Brand " (design). (Principal label) "French?
Style Cognac Napoleon Brand Bottled in the First Internal Revenue District?
Chicago, 111." (In red type across main label) "Superfine Quality." (On?
sticker) "Highly Recommended for Hotel, Cafe, and Family Use." (Shipping?
package, ends of case)  " Choice California Brandy Cognac Type."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed the following results, expressed, as parts per 100,000 of 100??
proof alcohol, except as otherwise stated:
Proof (degrees)?
    90. 2
Methyl   alcohol?
None.
Solids?
 232. 8
Total acids as acetic?
      8.0
Esters as acetic?
     3.9
Aldehydes as acetic?
      2. 2
Furfural?
:?None.
Fusel oil?
    13. 6
Color (degrees, brewer's scale, 0.5-inch cell)?:?      7.7
Color insoluble in amyl alcohol (per cent)?
    71.0
The product consists largely of neutral spiritsi?
Adulteration was alleged in the information for the reason that the article,?
by the label on the shipping case and on the bottle, purported to be a brandy?
of cognac type, or French style cognac, that is, a brandy of the type or style?
produced in the Cognac district of France, whereas, in truth and in fact, an?
imitation brandy of domestic origin, consisting largely of neutral spirits, had?
been substituted wholly for brandy of cognac type, or French style cognac.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Brandy?
Cognac Type," borne on the case, and the statement, to wit, " French Style?
Cognac," borne on the bottle label, were false and misleading, respectively, in?
that the first statement represented the article to be a brandy of cognac type?
and deceived and misled the purchaser into the belief that it was a brandy of?
cognac type, and the second statement represented the article to be a French?
style cognac and deceived and misled the purchaser into the belief that it was a?
French style cognac, that is, a brandy of the type or style, as the case might?
be, produced in the Cognac district of France, whereas, in truth and in fact,?
it was not, but was an imitation brandy, of domestic origin, consisting largely?
of neutral spirits.
On November 23, 1915, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to?
the information, and on December 10, 1915, the court imposed a fine of $25?
and costs.
CAEL VEOOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N. J. 4501-4550.] SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS-