727. Misbranding- of Bronebl-Lyptus.    U. S. v. Mrs. Millie R. Binz, Sirs. Maude F.
Boynton, and Ralph H. Boynton (Bronchi-Lyptus Laboratory). Pleas of
nolo contendere. Imposition of sentences suspended and defendants
placed on probation for 1 year.    (F. D. C. No. 5489.    Sample No. 32653-E.)
On October 27, 1941, the United States attorney for the Southern District of
California filed an information against Mrs. Millie R. Binz, Mrs. Maude F. Boyn-
ton, and Ralph H. Boynton, copartners trading as Bronchi-Lyptus Laboratory at
Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment on or about September S, 1940, from the
State of California into the State of Arizona of a number of packages, each
containing a number of bottles enclosed in cartons, and a number of sample vials,
of Bronchi-Lyptus which was misbranded.
Analyses of samples of the product showed that it consisted essentially of oil
of eucalyptus, a gum, glycerin, sugar, and water.
The article was alleged to be misbranded in that the name "Bronchi-Lyptus."
and certain statements in the labeling which represented and suggested that the
article was efficacious in the treatment of affections of the bronchi, would relieve
inflamed tissues and soothe the mucous membrane, would be efficacious in the
treatment of all throat irritations, would relieve night attacks of spasmodic croup
or coughing almost immediately; that it was a treatment accepted by all nose
and throat specialists and was highly efficacious in assisting the delicate organs of
the throat to throw off conditions that might lead to serious affections, would
assist nature in its efforts to bring about recovery from coughs and colds, would
provide relief in chronic conditions of the throat or lungs, and would aid one in
recovering from such conditions; and that it would correct fermentation in the
stomach, were false and misleading since it would not be efficacious for such
purposes. The article contained in the sample vial was alleged to be misbranded
further in that its label did not bear an accurate statement of the quantity of
the contents.
On November 30, 1941, the defendants were arraigned and entered pleas
of not guilty. On April 21, 1942, the defendants moved for an order requiring ,-
greater particularity in certain respects, particularly whether the Govern- [
ment intended to introduce evidence that the word "Bronchi-Lyptus" consti-
tuted misbranding, in what respect this word violated the law, and in what
respect persons reading the article would be led to believe that it was a
competent treatment for all chronic conditions of bronchial and nasal passages.
On May 4, 1942, the defendants' motion for a bill of particulars came before
the court and the court denied the motion announcing as grounds for such de-
nial, first, that the name "Bronchi-Lyptus" was not misleading and;
second, that assuming that it might have been misleading, the information
contained no direct averment as to how or in what manner the name could
be misleading. Thereupon the defendants changed their pleas of not guilty
to pleas of nolo contendere, and the court ordered that the imposition of sen-
tences be suspended and that the defendants be placed on probation for 1 year.