0173. Adulteratiosi    and    Misbranding of    double    distilled    water.     TJ.    S.
*     *     *     v. Eads "Water Co., a Corporation;     Plea of guilty.     Fine, 
$S0 and costs.     (F. & D. No. 11627.    I. S. Nos. 5576-r, 5902-r, 7707-r.)
On July 7, 1920, the United States attorney for the Western District of Mis- 
souri, 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 Eads 
Water Co., a corporation, Kansas City, Mo., alleging shipment by said company, 
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about July 8 and 
August 21, 1918, and May 16, 1919, from the State of Missouri into the State 
of Kansas, of quantities of double distilled water which was adulterated and 
misbranded.
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart- 
ment showed the presence of filthy and decomposed animal or vegetable sub- 
stances.
Adulteration of"the article was alleged in substance in the information for the 
reason that it consisted in whole or in part of a filthy and decomposed animal 
or vegetable substance.
Misbranding was alleged with respect to all shipments for the reason that the 
statement, to wit, " Our System Of Distillation Represents The Highest Degree 
Of Purity Ever Reached By Any Process," borne on the labels attached to the 
bottles containing the article, regarding the article, was false and misleading 
in that it represented that the article consisted wholly of double distilled water 
of the highest degree of purity, whereas, in truth and in fact, the article con- 
sisted in whole or in part of a filthy and decomposed animal or vegetable sub- 
stance. Misbranding was alleged with respect to the product involved in the 
shipments of August 21, 1918, and May 16, 1919, for the further reason that the 
article was food in package form, and the quantity of the contents was not 
plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.
On October 8, 1920, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $80 and 'coats.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.