5210. Adulteration of oyster?. V. S. * * * v. Emma Thomfoi-dt (B. Tiieinforat)' Plea of guilty. Fine, $20. (F. & D. No. 7578. I. S. Nos.? 1161-1, 1169-1.) On September 27, 1916, the United States attorney for the District of Colum?? bia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the police? court of the District aforesaid an information against Emma Thomfordt, trad?? ing as B. Thomfordt, Washington, D. C, alleging the sale by said defendant,? on February 2, 1916, and February 4, 1916, at the District aforesaid, in viola?? tion of the Food and Drugs Act, of a quantity of oystei's which were adulterated. Analysis of a sample of the article sold February 2, 1916, by the Bureau of? Chemistry of this department showed the following results: Liquor v(per cent)? 23.2 Meat (per cent)? 76.8 Analysis of meat. Solids (per cent)? 13.9 Ash (percent)? 1.12 Chlorids as sodium chlorid (per cent)? 0.19 Loss on boiling (per cent)? 49.5 Analysis of liquor. Solids (percent)? 2.7 Ash (per cent)? 1.12 Chlorids as sodium chlorid (per cent)? 0.94 That sold on February 4, 1916, showed: Liquor (per cent)? 26.8 Meat (per cent)? 73.2 Analysis of meat. Loss on boiling (per cent)? 50.1 Solids (per cent)? 15.7 Ash (percent)? 1.15 Chlorids as sodium chlorid (per cent)? 0.25 Analysis of liquor. Solids (percent)? 2.91 Ash (percent)? 0.972 Chlorids as sodium chlorid (per cent)? 0.830 The above analyses show addition of water to the oysters? in each case. Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason? that a substance, to wit, water had been mixed and packed therewith so as to? lower or reduce and injuriously affect its quality, and had been substituted in? part for oysters, which the article purported to be. On September 27, 1916, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the infor?? mation, and the court imposed a fine of $20. CARL VBOOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. N. J. 5201-5250.] SERVICE AND BEGULATOBY ANNOUNCEMENTS. 241