NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2567.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
U.   S.  v.   Charles  Reif  Co.    Plea  of  guilty.     Fine,  $10.
MISBRANDING OF EAU DE QUININE HAIE TONIC.
On June 6, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Eastern Dis- 
trict of Tennessee, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agri- 
culture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said dis- 
trict an information against the Charles Reif Co., a corporation, 
Chattanooga, Tenn., alleging shipment by said company, in violation 
of the Food and Drugs Act, on October 31, 1911, from the State of 
Tennessee into the State of Georgia of a quantity of hair tonic 
which was misbranded. The product was labeled: " Trade Mark 
Reif's Eau de Quinine Hair Tonic Contains grain alcohol, 50 per 
cent Prepared only by the Charles Reif Company, Chattanooga, 
Tenn."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry 
of this Department showed the following results: Alcohol by volume, 
24.7 per cent. Misbranding of the product was alleged in the infor- 
mation for the reason that the statement " Contains grain alcohol, 50 
per cent" borne on the label was false and misleading, as the analysis 
showed that the product did not contain 50 per cent alcohol. The 
product was further misbranded in that the form of label used was 
misleading because of the fact that the quantity of alcohol contained 
in the product was improperly declared, being placed in a very incon- 
spicuous place upon the label and not in the same sized type as that 
of the main part of the label. Regulation 17 providing that there 
shall be no intervening descriptive or explanatory reading matter 
between the names of the substances contained in the article and pro- 
viding that the size of the type used to declare the information re- 
quired by the act shall not be smaller than 8-point brevier capitals,
10452°-i-No, 2567—13
provided that in case the size of the package will not permit the use 
of 8-point type the size of the type may be reduced proportionately.
On November 27, 1912, the defendant company entered a plea of 
guilty to the information and the court imposed a fine of $10. It 
was stated in the judgment of the court that the offence in labeling 
arose from an inadvertence and not from an intent to violate the law.
B. T. GALLOWAY, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 10, 1913.
2567
o