5894.  Adulteration  and misbranding of  cocoa.     U.   S.    *    *    *    v.  Henry  V. 
Stollwerck  (Victor  Chocolate Works).    Plea  of guilty.    Fine,  $10.
(P. & D. No. 6548.    I. S. Nos. 20291-1, 21103-m.)
On August 21, 3917, the United States attorney for the District of New 
Jersey, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
Henry V. Stollwerck, trading as the Victor Chocolate Works, Jersey City, N. J., 
alleging shipment by said defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, 
on or about May 11, 1916, and May 12, 1916, from the State of New Jersey 
into the State of New York, of quantities of cocoa which was adulterated and 
misbranded.   The article was invoiced in part as " Peerless Brand Cocoa."
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this 
department showed the following results:
Shipment of-
May 11, 
1916.
Moisture (100° C.) 
Ether extract 
Crude fiber 
Ash 
1 
Water insoluble ash 
Ash insoluble in 10 per cent Cl
Products consist of cocoa powder, containing an excessive amount of crude 
fiber and mineral matter.
Adulteration of the article in each shipment was alleged in the information 
for the reason that certain substances, to wit, cacao shells and cacao dust, 
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 cocoa, 
which the article purported to be.
Misbranding of the article in each shipment was alleged for the reason that 
the statement concerning it and the ingredients and substances contained 
therein appearing on the barrels, to wit, " Cocoa," was false and misleading in 
that it represented to purchasers that the article was cocoa, and for the further 
reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead purchasers 
in the belief that it was cocoa, whereas, in fact and in truth, it was not, but 
was a mixture of cocoa, cacao shells, and cacao dust, and for the further reason 
that it was an imitation of another article, to wit, cocoa, and was offered for 
sale under the name of another article, to wit, cocoa.
' On October 15, 1917, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine of $10.
CARL VROOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.