3553. Adulteration and misbranding of Slivowitz type prune brandy.   U. S. v. G. Riesmeyer?
Distilling Co.  Plea of guilty.   Fine, $20 and costs.   (F. & T>. No. 5551.   I. S. No. 5256-e.)
On April 24, 1914, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri,?
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 G. Riesmeyer Distilling Co.;?
a corporation, St. Louis, Mo., alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the?
Food and Drugs Act, on or about October 7, 1912, from the State of Missouri into the?
State of Nebraska, of a quantity of prune brandy which was adulterated and mis-?
branded. The product was labeled: "Slivowitz Type Prune Brandy A Compound?
Guaranteed under the Food and Drugs Act June 30, 1906. G. Riesmeyer Dist. Co.,?
St. Louis."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed the following results, expressed as grams per 100 liters?100 proof alcohol, ex??
cept where otherwise noted:
Proof (degrees)?
?88. 6
Solids?
?21. 2
Acids, total, as acetic-?
?10. 8
Esters, as acetic?
?19. 9
Aldehydes, as acetic?
?10. 8
Furfural?
?0. 8
Fusel oil?
?28. 8
Total color (degrees, Lovibond, 0.5-inch cell to 100? proof).. *??1.1
Color, insoluble in amyl alcohol (per cent)?
?8.0
The product contains about 60 per cent neutral spirits.
Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information for the reason that a sub??
stance, to wit, a mixture of prune brandy and neutral spirits, had been substituted?
wholly or in part for the genuine prune brandy which the article purported to be.?
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the label of the product bore the following?
statement, to wit, "Slivowitz Type Prune Brandy," which said statement was false?
and misleading in that it purported and represented that the product was a pure?
prune brandy, whereas, in fact, the same was not a pure prune brandy but was a?
mixture of neutral spirits and prune brandy; and, further, in that it was labeled?
and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that the same?
was a genuine prune brandy, whereas, in fact, the same was not a genuine prune?
brandy, but a mixture of prune brandy and neutral spirits.
On July 7, 1914, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the information?
and the court imposed a fine of $20 and costs.
CARI, VROOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. 0., January 13, 1915.
N.J. 3551-3600.]     SEEVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	'     65