6121.  Adulteration and misbranding- of wine.    V. S.    *    *    *    v. Albert Teat-?
tor   (A.   Textor   &   Co.).     Plea   of  nolo   contendere.    Fine,   $25   ana
costs.    (F. & D. No. 6382.    I. S. Nos. 17925-h, 17928-h.)
On May 9, 1916, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Ohio,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court?
of the United States for said district an information against Albert Textor,?
trading under the name of A. Textor & Co., Sandusky, Ohio, alleging shipment?
by said defendant, in violation of the Pood and Drugs Act, on or about March?
10, 1914 (2 shipments), from the State of Ohio into the State of New York, of?
quantities of an article labeled in part, " Port Wine," which was adulterated?
and misbranded.
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed the following results:
Alcohol (per cent by volume)?
13.95?14.27
Solids, calculated (grams per 100 cc)?
11.00?11.08
Nonsugar solids (grams per 100 cc)?
    2.25?2.37
Sugar,   as   invert,   before   inversion   (grams   per
1Q0   cc)?
    8.75?7.83
Sucrose by copper (gram per 100 cc)?
None.?0. 88
Ash (gram per 100 cc)?
    0.35?0.35
Alkalinity of soluble ash (cc N/10 acid per 100 cc) _ 11. 6?13. 0?
Alkalinity   of   insoluble   ash   (cc   N/10   acid   per
100 cc)?
10.8?8.6
Acid, as tartaric (gram per 100 cc)?
    0.66?0.69
Volatile acid, as acetic (gram per 100 cc)?    0.24?0.25
Fixed acid, as tartaric (gram per 100 cc)?    0.36?0.38
Total tartaric acid (gram per 100 cc)?
    0.01?0.03
Free tartaric acid?
None.?None.
Cream of tartar (gram per 100 cc)?
   0.013?0.036
Tartaric acid to alkaline earths?
None.?None.
Chlorine  (gram per 100 cc)?
    0.055?0.052
Color ?
Archil?Cudbear
The above results show each product to be pomace wine, arti??
ficially colored.
Adulteration of the article in each shipment was alleged in substance in the?
information for the reason that an imitation product, prepared from pomace?
and artificially colored, had been substituted wholly or in part for Ohio port?
wine, which the article purported to be, and for the further reason that it was?
a product inferior to Ohio port wine, to wit, an imitation product, prepared from?
pomace and artificially colored with a certain vegetable dye, to wit, archil or?
cudbear, as the case might be, to simulate the appearance of genuine Ohio port?
wine and in a manner whereby its inferiority to Ohio port wine was concealed.
Misbranding of the article in each shipment was alleged for the reason that?
the statement borne on the barrels and keg containing the article, to wit, " Ohio?
Port Wine," was false and misleading in that it represented that the article?
was Ohio port wine, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid?
so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that it was Ohio port?
wine, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not, but was an imitation product?
prepared from pomace and artificially colored.
On January 11, 1918, the defendant entered a plea of nolo' contendere to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $25 and costs.
R. A. PEARSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
132	
BUKEATJ  OP CHEMISTBY.	
[Supplement53,