400. Adulteration and misbi-anding- of " Hampton Springs Water." U. S.?
*' " * v. Hampton Springs Co.," a corporation. Plea of not guilty.?
Tried   to   the   eotirt   and   a   jury.     Verdict   of   guilty.     Fine,   $100.
(P. & D. No. 7349.    I. S. No. 4016-k.)
On July 12, 1916, the United States attorney for the Northern District of?
Florida, 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?
Hampton Springs Co., a corporation, Hampton Springs, Fla., alleging shipment?
by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, on or?
about July 14, 1915, from the State of Florida into the State of Georgia, of a?
quantity of an article labeled in part, " Hampton Springs Water," which was?
adulterated and misbrancled.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed the following results:
IONS.
Mgs. per liter.
Sulphuric acid   (SO^)?
398.0
Bicarbonic acid (HC03)?
328.0
Nitric acid (NOs)?
     0.3
Chlorin   (CI)?
      7.0
Calcium   (Ca)'?
159. 2
Magnesium   (Mg)?
    68.4
Potassium (K) and Sodium (Na) by difference?
     6.7
967.6
HYPOTHETICAL COMBINATIONS.
Mgs. per liter.?
Sodium nitrate (NaN03)?
     0.4
Sodium chlorid   (NaCl)?
    11.5
Sodium sulphate  (Na2S04)?
      6.5
Magnesium sulphate (MgS04)?
338.6
Calcium sulphate (CaS04)?
174.9
Calcium bicarbonate (Ca(HCOs)2)?
435.7
967.6
Mgs. per liter.?
Bottle	Bottle
No. 1.	No. 2.
Ammonia, free?
0.102?0. 066
Ammonia, albuminoid?
0.160?0.134
Nitrogen as nitrites?
  None?0. 050
Nitrogen as nitrates?
0. 06?0. 06
Residue ignited: Darkens.
Bacteriological examination showed high bacterial counts, and?
excessive number of organisms of the B. coli group indicating that?
the water contained filth.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the first count of the information?
for the reason that it consisted in whole or in part of a filthy, putrid, and decom??
posed animal substance.
It was charged in substance in the second count of the information that the?
article was misbranded for the reason that the statements appearing on the label?
falsely and fraudulently represented it as a treatment for indigestion, rheuma-
120	
BUKEAU  OF CHEMISTBY.	
[Supplement 32,
tism, dyspasia, and stomach, liver, skin, kidney, and bladder troubles, when, in?
truth and in fact, it was not. Misbranding was alleged in the third count of the?
information for the reason that it consisted of food in package form, and the?
quantity of the contents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the out??
side of the package in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count.?
On January 4, 1917, the defendant company entered a plea of not guilty to?
the information, and on January 5, 1917, the case was brought to trial before the?
court and a jury. After the submission of evidence, arguments by counsel, and?
the charge of the court, the jury retired, and after due deliberation returned a?
verdict of guilty as to counts 1 and 3 of th? information and not guilty as to?
count 2. The court thereupon sentenced the defendant company to pay a fine of?
$100.
CLARENCE OUSLET, Acting Secretary of- Agriculture.
S. R. A.—Chem. Suppl. 33.