3950. Misbranding of ergotin-aloe compound pills, ergotin and aloe compound
tablets, amphetamine sulfate tablets, and sulfamerazine tablets. U. S.
v. Tarlow Pharmacy, Sam Silverman, and Sidney Klein. Pleas of guilty.
Fine of $400, plus costs, against defendants jointly. (F. D. C. No. 33847.
Sample Nos. 33548-L, 33551-L, 33552-L, 33564-L.)
INFORMATION FILED: December 19, 1952, Northern District of Illinois, against
the Tarlow Pharmacy, a partnership, Chicago, 111., and Sam Silverman and
Sidney Klein, partners in the partnership.
ALLEGED VIOLATION : On or about October 17, 18, 19, and 22, 1951, while quan-
tities of ergotin-aloe compound pills, ergotin and aloe compound tablets,
amphetamine sulfate tablets, and sulfamerazine tablets were being held for
sale at the Tarlow Pharmacy, after shipment in interstate commerce, the
defendants caused various quantities of such drugs to be repackaged and dis-
pensed without a physician's prescription, which acts resulted in the re-
packaged drugs being misbranded.
NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Sections 502 (b) (1) and (2), the re-
packaged drugs failed to bear labels containing the name and place of business
of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and an accurate statement of the
quantity of the contents; and, Section 502 (f) (1), the labeling of the re-
packaged drugs failed to bear adequate directions for use.
Further misbranding, Section 502 (e) (1), the repackaged sulfamerazine
tablets failed to bear a label containing the common or usual name of the drug;
Section 502 (e) (2), the repackaged ergotin-aloe compound pills, ergotin and
aloe compound tablets, and amphetamine sulfate tablets failed to bear labels,
containing the common or usual name of each active ingredient of the drugs ?.
and, Section 502 (f) (2), the repackaged sulfamerazine tablets failed to bear
labeling containing adequate warnings against use in those pathological condi-
tions where their use may be dangerous to health, and against unsafe dosage-
and methods and duration of administration, in such manner and form, as are
necessary for the protection of users.
DISPOSITION : February 13,1953. Pleas of guilty having been entered, the court
imposed a fine of $400, plus costs, against the defendants jointly.