6604. Pearson Sakrin.   (F.D.C. No. 43655.   S. No. 72-388 P.)
QUANTITY :   99 cases, 36 btls. each, at Atlanta, Ga.
SHIPPED :   9-9-59, from New Providence, N.J., by Pearson Pharmacal Co., Inc.
LABEL IN PAST:    (Ctn.)   "Pearson Sakrin Liquid Sweetener with Exclusive
Daramin   No Calories!   No  Sugar!   No  Salt!   No  Sodium!"  and   (btl.)
"Pearson Sakrin Super-Concentrated Liquid Sweetener * * * Contents 34 cc." 
ACCOMPANYING LABELING :   Leaflets in carton reading "The Pearson Sakrin Way
to Slimness," and display cartons reading "Lose "Weight!   Stay Slim! * * *
Pearson Sakrin."
LIBELED :   11-5-59, N. Dist. Ga.
CHARGE:   502(a)-when shipped, the labeling contained false and misleading
representations that the article was an adequate and effective treatment for
weight reduction or for maintaining slimness. 
The libel alleged also that the article was misbranded under the provisions
of the law applicable to foods, as reported in notices of judgment on foods. 
DISPOSITION:   On 1-4-60, Pearson Pharmacal Co., Inc., appeared and filed an
answer to the libel, a claim to the property, and an application for an order
removing the cause to the Southern District of Florida.    On 1-18-60, the
claimant's motion to remove was overruled and denied by the court in the
following opinion:
SLOAN, District Judge: "On November 5, 1959, a libel of information was 
filed against the described property seeking its seizure and condemnation by 
reason of its allegedly having been misbranded within the meaning of the 
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C, ? 301, et seq.) when intro- 
duced into interstate commerce. The articles were subsequently seized under 
an order of this Court. Pearson Pharmacal Company, Inc., a Florida corpora- 
tion, on January 4,1960, filed an answer to the libel and a claim to the property 
seized.
"Claimant has filed an application for an order removing the cause for trial 
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
*See also NOB. 6582, 6583, 6589, 6592, 6593, 6596-6601.
Division, pursuant to the provisions of 21 U.S.C., ? 334. In support of the 
motion, an affidavit of Lester M. Amster is attached. In this affidavit the 
affiant deposes that he is president of the claimant corporation and that its 
principal place of business is 8101 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida; that 
claimant does not have or maintain any office within the State of Georgia and 
that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida is 
within more reasonable proximity to claimant's place of business than is this 
Court and that a removal of the cause for trial in the United States District 
Court for the Southern District of Florida at Miami 'would best serve the ends 
of justice.'
Under Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act provision that, in event of 
failure of parties to stipulate for removal of condemnation proceeding for 
trial, a claimant may apply to court of district in which seizure has been 
made and, absent showing of good cause to contrary, procure order speci- 
fying district of 'reasonable proximity' to claimant's principal place of 
business, such transfer or removal cannot be to district of claimant's 
principal place of business but only to a 'district of reasonable proximity' 
thereto. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, ? 304(a), 21 U.S.C.A. 
? 334(a).
United States v. United States District Court, 226 F. 2d 238(3).
"The instant motion to remove the case for trial to the district of claimant's 
principal place of business is overruled and denied."
Subsequently, the claimant moved that its answer and claim be dismissed. 
On 7-31-61, the claimant's motion to dismiss its answer and claim was granted 
and a default decree of condemnation and destruction was entered.