12020. Adulteration and misbranding of mineral water.    17.  S. v. Famom
Mineral Wells Water Co., a Corporation.    Plea of guilty to counts 
1    and   4.     Fine,   $100   and    costs.    Counts   2   and   3   dismissed.
(F. & D. No. 10289.    I. S. No. 6162-r.)
On August 2, 1919, the United States attorney for the Northern District of 
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis- 
trict Court of the United States for said district an information against the 
Famous Mineral Wells Water Co., a corporation, Mineral Wells, Tex., alleging 
shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, 
on or about October 7, 1918, from the State of Texas into the State of Okla- 
homa, of a quantity of mineral water which was adulterated and misbranded.
The article was labeled in part: "Famous Mineral Wells Water * * * 
Guaranteed by Famous Mineral Wells Water Co. Mineral Wells, Texas;" 
(blown on bottle)  " One Half Gallon."
Examination of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this 
department showed that the water was polluted. The water contained 5.4 
grams per liter of dissolved mineral matter which consisted chiefly of sodium 
sulphate.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in count 1 of the information for the 
reason that it consisted in whole or in part of a filthy and decomposed animal 
and vegetable substance.
Misbranding- was alleged in count 2 for the reason that the statement, to 
wit, " One Half Gallon," blown on the bottle containing the article, was false 
and misleading in that it represented that each of the said bottles contained one- 
half gallon of the said article, and for the further reason that it was labeled 
as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser into the belief that each 
of the said bottles contained one-half gallon of the article, whereas, in truth 
and in fact, each of said bottles did not contain one-half gallon of the article 
but did contain a less amount. Misbranding was alleged in count 3 for the 
reason that the article was food in package form and the quantity of the con- 
tents was not plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package.
Misbranding was alleged in count 4 of the information for the reason that 
certain statements, designs, and devices regarding the therapeutic and curative 
effects of the article, appearing in the labeling, falsely and fraudulently rep- 
resented it to be effective as a treatment, remedy, and cure for rheumatism, 
Bright's disease, diabetes, stomach troubles, female complaint, and insomnia, 
when, in truth and in fact, it was not.
On December 10, 1923, a plea of guilty to counts 1 and 4 of the information 
was entered on behalf of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine 
of $100 and costs.   Counts 2 and 3 were dismissed.
C. F. MARVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.