NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2348.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
MISBRANDING OF SOLUBLE CHOCOLATE.
On December 12, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said 
district an information against Anthony M. Hance and Edward H. 
Hance, copartners trading under the firm name of Hance Bros. & 
White, Philadelphia, Pa., alleging shipment by said defendants, in 
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about October 24, 1911, 
from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of California, of a 
quantity of so-called soluble chocolate which was misbranded. The 
product was labeled in part as follows: " Powdered Extract Choco- 
late * * * This is a concentrated extract. Made from selected 
cocoa beans, and as the fatty matter (Cacao Butter) has been ex- 
tracted, * * * Hance Brothers & White, manufacturing Chem- 
ists and Pharmaceutists, Philadelphia, No. 2095. Guaranteed by 
Hance Brothers & White, under the Food and Drugs Act. June 30, 
1906."    (In large type) "KOKO."
An analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of -Chemistry 
of this Department showed the following results: Water (loss at 
100° C. in air), 4.08 per cent; ash, total, 4.80 per cent; ash, insoluble 
in water, 3.28 per cent; alkalinity of water-soluble ash (cc N/10 
acid per gram), 1.43; protein (N. X 6.25), 20.39 per cent; fat (petro- 
lic ether extract), 27.38 per cent; crude fiber, 4.10 per cent. Micro- 
scope: No adulteration detected. Product is a ground cocoa and not 
a chocolate. Misbranding of the product was alleged in the infor- 
mation for the reason that it was labeled and branded so as to de- 
ceive and mislead the purchaser thereof, being labeled as set forth
87220°—No. 2348—13
above, wherein and whereby said product was represented to be and 
purported to be a powdered extract chocolate, whereas, in truth and 
in fact, it was not so, but was ordinary cocoa; and for the further 
reason that by the statement aforesaid contained on the principal 
label set forth above, the product purported and represented to be a 
powdered extract chocolate with the cocoa butter extracted, whereas, 
in truth and in fact, it was not so, but was an ordinary cocoa without 
said cocoa butter having been extracted.
On December 12, 1912, the defendants entered a plea of non vult 
contendere and the court imposed a fine of $10. The case was re- 
ported for prosecution upon a charge of adulteration also.
W. M. HAYS,
Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 
WASHINGTON, D. G, March 19, 1913.
2348
o