14051. Misbranding of jelly and preserves.    U. S. v. Royal Palm Kitchens, a
partnership, and Adolph C. Kordick and Joseph L. Cordell.   Pleas of 
nolo contendere. Fine of $1,000 and costs against the defendants, jointly.
(F. D. C No. 25578.   Sample Nos. 16844-K to 16846-K, incl., 25205-K to 
25208-K, inch, 27196-K, 27197-K.)
INDICTMENT RETURNED: November 15, 1948, Northern District of Illinois, 
against the Royal Palm Kitchens, a partnership, Chicago, Ill., and Adolph C. 
Kordick and Joseph L. Cordell, partners.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT: Between the approximate dates of November 24, 1947, 
and June 26, 1948, from the State of Illinois into the States of Wisconsin, 
Iowa, and Missouri.
LABEL IN PART: "Royal Palm Pure Strawberry [or "Blackberry" or "Black 
Raspberry"] Jelly," "Royal Palm Pure Black Raspberry Preserves," or "Honey- 
moon Brand Red Currant [or "Strawberry," "Black Raspberry," or "Mint"] 
Jelly."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Jelly. Misbranding, Section 403 (g) (1), the products 
failed to conform to the definition and standard of identity for strawberry, 
blackberry, black raspberry, red currant, and mint jellies since the various 
jellies were made from mixtures composed of less than 45 parts by weight of 
the various fruit juice ingredients to each 55 parts by weight of the saccharine 
ingredient and the mixtures had not been concentrated by heat to such a point 
that the soluble-solids content of the finished jellies was not less than 65 percent. 
Black raspberry preserves. Misbranding. Section 403 (g) (1), the product 
failed to conform to the definition and standard of identity for black raspberry 
preserves since it was made from a mixture composed of less than 45 parts by 
weight of the fruit ingredient, black raspberry, to each 55 parts by weight of 
the saccharine ingredients and the mixture had not been concentrated by 
heat to such a point that the soluble-solids content of the finished black rasp- 
berry preserves was not less than 68 percent.
DISPOSITION : December 22, 194S. Pleas of nolo contendere having been en- 
tered, a fine of $1,000. together with costs, was imposed against the defendants, 
jointly.