4?46. Adulteration of oyster*. U. S. * * * v. Old Dittrfi Market, Inc., a?
corporation. Plea, of guilty. Fine, $20. (P. & D. No. 7178. I. S. Nos.?
3435-1, 3444-1.)
On March 1, 1916, the United States attorney for the District of Columbia,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Police Court?
for said District an information against the Old Dutch Market, Inc., a corpora??
tion, doing business at Washington, D. C, alleging the sale by said defendant,?
on December 14, 1915, and on December 15, 1915, at the District aforesaid, in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, of a quantity of oysters, which were?
adulterated.
Analysis of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed the following results:
Oysters sold on December 14, 1915:
Liquor (per cent)?
25.6
Meat (per cent)_??
74.4
Analysis of meat.
Loss on boiling  (per cent)?
53.2
Solids  (per cent)?
!___ 16.80
Ash  (percent)?
    0.90
Chlorids as sodium chlorid (per cent)?
    0.30
Chlorids in liquor as sodium .chlorid (per cent)?
    0. 30
Oysters sold on December 15, 1915:
Liquor (per cent)?
33.5
Meats  (per cent)?
66.5
Analysis of -meat.
Loss on boiling  (per cent)?
53.9
Solids  (per cent)?
15.25
Ash  (per cent)?
    0.81
Chlorids in meat as sodium chlorid (per cent)?
    0.05
Chlorids in liquor as sodium chlorid (per cent)?
    0.50
These results show the substitution of a material  amount of?
water for oysters in each case.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason?
that a certain substance, to wit, water, had been mixed and packed therewith?
so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength and had?
been substituted in part for oysters, which said article purported to be.
 On March 1, 1916, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the in??
formation, and the court imposed a fine of $20.
R. A. PBAESON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N. J. 4901-495Q.J   SEEVICE AKTD REGULATORY AJOTO UN CEMENTS.	595