NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2740.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
U.  S. v. Maguns, Mabee & Reynard.   Plea of guilty.   Fine, $100.
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF OIL OF SWEET ORANGE AND
OIL OF LEMON.
On November 28, 1911, the United States Attorney for the South- 
ern District of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for said 
district an information against Magnus, Mabee & Reynard, a cor- 
poration, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company, in 
violation of the Food and Drugs Act—
(1) On July 29, 1910, from the State of New York into the State 
of Virginia, of a quantity of oil of sweet orange which was adulter- 
ated and misbranded. The product was labeled: " 1 lb. Net Weight 
Importers and Manufacturers Purity and Strength Oil Orange 
Sweet Hand-Pressed Magnus and Lauer Essential Oils, Vanilla 
Beans and Chemicals. New York, N. Y., U. S. A. Guaranty Legend 
Serial No. 1245." Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau 
of Chemistry of this Department showed the following results: 
Specific gravity at 15.6° C., 0.8527; optical rotation, original oil at 
20° O, +89.9°; optical rotation, first 10 per cent distillate at 20c C, 
+91.8°; refruitive index, original oil at 20° C, 1.4724; refruitive 
index, first 10 per cent distillate at 20° C, 1.4710; refruitive index, 
10 per cent residue, 1.4806; citral by Fuchsine sulphite method 
(total aldehydes), 2.07 per cent; citral by Hiltner method, 0.91 per 
cent; pinene test, negative; ethyl alcohol, present; refruitive index of 
aldehydes at 20° C, 1.4443. Adulteration of the product was al- 
leged in the information for the reason that certain substances other 
than oil of sweet orange, the exact nature of such added substances
15996°—No. 2740—14
being unknown, had been mixed with said article so as to reduce, 
lower, and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and also cer- 
tain substances other than oil of orange, to wit, among others, lemon 
terpenes, had been substituted in part for said article. Misbranding 
was alleged for the reason that the product was labeled as set forth 
above so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser or purchasers there- 
of, in that the package, container, and label of the article bore a 
statement regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained 
therein which was false and misleading, in that said label stated that 
the article was hand pressed oil of orange, whereas in fact it was 
not so but was a mixed product consisting in part of oil of orange 
and of other substances unknown.
(2) On February 21, 1911, from the State of New York into the 
State of Florida, of a quantity of oil of lemon which was adulter- 
ated and misbranded. The product was labeled: " Oil Lemon. H. P. 
Magnus & Lauer, New York, U. S. A. 8 oz. Net Weight, U. S. Se- 
rial No. 1245. Magnus, Mabee & Eeynard N. Y. N. M. & K." Analy- 
sis of a sample of this product by said Bureau of Chemistry showed 
the following results: Specific gravity, 15.6°/15.6° C., 0.8560; refrac- 
tive index, 20° C, 1.4740; optical rotation, 20° C, +60.3°; boiling 
point, 79° C.; alcohol (per cent by volume), 0.85; refruitive index 
of 10 per cent residue by vacuum distillation, 1.4891; citral (Kleber 
method), 7.14 per cent; the sample contained alcohol and a substance 
foreign to lemon oil. Adulteration of the product was alleged in the 
information for the reason that a substance not wholly oil of lemon 
had been mixed and packed with it in such manner as to reduce and 
injuriously affect its quality and strength, and also certain sub- 
stances other than oil of lemon, to wit, citral derived from lemon 
grass, had been substituted in part for the article. Misbranding was 
alleged for the reason that the product was labeled as set forth 
above, so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser or purchasers there- 
of, in that the container and label on the article bore a statement re- 
garding it and the ingredients and substances contained therein 
which was false and misleading, in that said label stated that it was 
oil of lemon, whereas in fact it was not oil of lemon, but a mixture 
of oil of lemon and citral, derived from lemon grass.
On May 23, 1913, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty 
to the information and the court imposed a fine of $100.
C. F. MARVIN, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C., October 13, 1913.
2740
o