3006. Misbranding of Nelson's Hygienic Powder. U. S. v. Great Lakes Pharmacal
Corp. and Paul M. Hiller.   Motion to remand case to Administrator
denied.   Plea of guilty on behalf of corporation; plea of not guilty
by individual   Tried to the court.   Fine of $500 against corporation;
case against individual dismissed.    (F. D. C. No. 25625.   Sample No.
41626-K.)
INFORMATION FILED:   April 1, 1949, Northern District of Ohio, against the
Great Lakes Pharmacal Corp., Cleveland, Ohio, and Paul M. Hiller, president
of the corporation.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT:   On or about March 3, 1948, from the State of Ohio into
the State of Michigan.
PRODUCT :   Analysis showed that the product was a white, aromatic powder con-
taining 74? boric acid, 22.7? zinc sulfate, 0.36? phenol, 2.11? oxyquinoline
sulfate, and aluminum compounds.
LABEL, IN PART:   "Nelson's Hygienic Powder   *   *   *   Great Lakes Labora-
tories   Cleveland, Ohio."
NATURE OF CHARGE:   Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements on the
label of the article were false and misleading.   The statements represented
and suggested that the article would be efficacious in the cure, mitigation, and
treatment of leucorrhea, vaginitis, all inflamed conditions, catarrh, all inflamed
mucous membranes, wounds, ulcers, abscesses, and sores.   The article would
not be efficacious for such purposes.
DISPOSITION : A motion was filed on behalf of the defendants, requesting that
the case be remanded to the Federal Security Administrator for review and
reconsideration of the charges, on the ground that the matter was a minor
violation that could be disposed of under Section 306 of the Act. This motion
was heard by the court on October 11, 1949, and was overruled. A plea of
guilty was entered on behalf of the corporation and a plea of not guilty was
entered by the individual.
The case came on for hearing before the court on October 12, 1949, on the
question of the responsibility of Mr. Hiller for the violation. At the conclu-
sion of the testimony on such question, the court, on October 12,1949, dismissed
the case against the individual and imposed a fine of $1,000 against the cor-
poration. A motion for a new trial was filed on behalf of the corporate de-
fendant but was overruled by the court; however, the fine imposed against this
defendant was reduced to $500.