NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2719.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drug* Act.)
V. S. v. Fritz Thies.   Plea of guilty.   Fine, $1 and costs.
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF PEPPERMINT.
On April 30, 1913, the United States Attorney for the District of 
Colorado, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
filed in the District Court of the United States for said district an 
information against Fritz Thies, as president and manager of the 
Fritz Thies Mercantile Co., a corporation, Denver, Colo., alleging 
shipment by said defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, 
on March 8,1911, from the State of Colorado into the then Territory, 
now State, of New Mexico, of a quantity of peppermint which was 
adulterated and misbranded. The product was labeled: " Pepper- 
mint, Guaranteed not to be adulterated or misbranded within the 
meaning of the National and State Pure Food Laws. The Fritz. 
Thies Mercantile Co."
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, 0.92962; solids (grams per 100 cc), 0.055; oil of pepper- 
mint by precipitation, trace; oil by Howard's method, 0.18 per cent; 
alcohol, 52.3 per cent; methyl alcohol, none; dye, reaction of Naph- 
thol Green B. S. & J. No. 398; odor and flavor indicate dilute alco- 
holic solution of oil of peppermint. Adulteration of the product was 
alleged in the information for the reason that alcohol and water and 
a coal-tar dye, namely, Naphthol Green B, had been mixed with 
said product so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality 
and strength, and for the further reason that alcohol and water and 
said coal-tar dye had been substituted in part for peppermint, and
14307°—No. 2719—14
for the further reason that said product had been colored with said 
coal-tar dye, whereby the inferiority of the article was concealed. 
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the product was an 
imitation of and offered for sale under the distinctive name of 
another article, namely, peppermint. Misbranding was alleged for 
the further reason that the labels on the outside of the packages of 
the product were false and misleading, and so worded as to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser into believing that the product was pure 
peppermint extract, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not pure 
peppermint extract, but on the contrary was a dilute alcoholic solu- 
tion, artificially colored, containing only a trace of peppermint.
On May 27, 1913, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the in- 
formation and the court imposed a fine of $1 and costs.
C. F. MARVIN, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, October 7, 1913.
2719
o