5070.  Adulteration and misbranding? ?? connac type  brandy and  inc old
cognac. V. S. * * * v. Peter Bel Santo (l~aivei*sal Mauniactarins?
Bitters Co.). Plea of guilty. Flue, $100 and costs. (F. & D. No. 6610.?
I. S. No. 5080-b.J
0a March 23, 1916. 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?
I*eter Dei Santo, trading as the Universal Manufacturing Bitters Co., Chicago,?
111., alleging shipment by said defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs?
Act, on or about January 9, 1914, from the State of Illinois into the State of?
Indiana, of quantities of an article contained in bottles and labeled in part,?
" Cognac Type Brandy " and " Fine Old Cognac," which was adulterated and?
misbranded.
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistrj of this depart??
ment showed the following results:
Fine old cognac.    Cognac type.
Proof (degrees)?
    80.0?87.5
Solids (grams per 100 liters, 100 proof)?
    72.1?76.8
Total acids as acetic   (grams per 100 liters, 100
proof)?
      5.6?5.5
Esters as acetic (grams per 100 liters, 100 proof).      6.1?6. 0
Aldehydes  as acetic   (grams per 100 liters,  100
proof)?
      2.3?1.4
Furfural?
None.        Trace.
Fusel oil (grams per 100 liters. 100 proof")?    17. 3?16.1
Each product consists largely of neutral spirits,
100 proof)?
      7.5?7.4
Color (per cent insoluble in amyl alcohol)?    77.0?68.0
Each product consists largely of neutral spirits.?
Adulteration of the article labeled, " Cognac Type Brandy," was alleged in the?
information for the reason that said article by its label purported to be a?
brandy of cognac type, a brandy of the type 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, in whole or in part,?
for brandy of cognac type.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Cognac?
Type Brandy ", borne on the label attached to the bottles, was false and mis??
leading in that it represented the article to be a brandy of cognac type, a brandy?
of the type produced in the Cognac district of France, and for the further?
reason that it was labeled, " Cognac Type Brandy," so as to deceive and mis??
lead the purchaser into the belief that it was a brandy of cognac type, a?
brandy of the type produced in the Cognac district of France, whereas, in truth?
and in fact, it was not, but was an imitation brandy of domestic origin and?
consisting largely of neutral spirits.
Adulteration of the article labeled, " Fine Old Cognac," was alleged in the?
information for the reason that an imitation brandy of domestic origin, con??
sisting largely of neutral spirits, had been substituted wholly for cognac, which?
the article purported to be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, " Cognac ",?
borne on the label attached to the bottles, was false and misleading in that it?
represented the article to be cognac, a brandy produced in the Cognac district
N. J. 5051-5100]   SEBVICE AN"]} REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	35
of France; and for the further reason that it was labeled "Cognac", so as to?
deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was cognac, a brandy?
produced in the Cognac district of France, whereas, in truth and in fact, it?
was not, but was an imitation brandy, consisting largely of neutral spirits and?
manufactured in the United States of America.
On 'March 7, 1917, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information,?
and the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs.
CLABESTCE OUSLET, Acting Secretary of Agriculture,
86	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTEY,	
[Supplement 32,