F.  & D.  No.  1817.
I. S. No. 12479-b.	
Issued January 25, 1912.
United States Department of Agriculture,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1238.
(fiiyeii pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF EXTRACT OF PEPPERMINT.
At the July term of the District Court of the United States for the?
Northern District of California the grand jurors of the United States?
within and for said district returned an indictment against Fleisch-?
mann-Clark Co., a corporation, of the city of San Francisco, in said?
district, charging shipment by it, in violation of the Food and Drugs?
Act, on or about December 11, 1909, of a quantity of extract of pep??
permint, which was adulterated and misbranded, from the State of?
California into the State of Nevada. The product was labeled?
" Our Guarantee as to purity and quality is represented by our trade?
mark. Trade Mark Eegistered. Superior Quality Trade Mark?
Eegistered EXTRACT OF PEPPEEMINT, Our Guarantee as to?
purity and quality is represented by our trade mark. Artificially?
colored."
The said indictment was based upon a report of the Secretary of?
Agriculture showing the following results of an analysis of a sample?
of said product made by the Bureau of Chemistry of the United?
States Department of Agriculture.
Specific  gravity?
      . 9357
Alcohol by volume (per cent)?
49.6
Methyl alcohol?
       None
Oil of peppermint  (Howard Meth.)?
       None
Artificially colored with an unidentifiable dye.
Adulteration was charged against the product for the reason that?
an imitation extract of peppermint had been mixed and packed with?
it so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality and?
strength, and had been substituted wholly or in part therefor, and?
because the said product had been colored in a manner whereby its?
inferiority was concealed. Misbranding was alleged for the reason?
that said product was in imitation of and sold under the distinctive
20335??No.  1238?12
name of another article, to wit, extract of peppermint, and for the?
reason that the statement " Superior quality Extract of Peppermint,"?
borne on the label, was false and misleading and calculated to de??
ceive and mislead the purchaser, because said product was not a?
superior quality extract of peppermint, but an imitation thereof.
On November 19,1910, the defendant corporation entered a plea of?
guilty and was fined $5.
JAMES WILSON,?
Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, December 7, 1911.
1238