4536.  Adulteration   and   misbranding   of   oil   of   cajajmt.     IT.   S.   v.   Hymes?
Bros.  Co.,  a  corporation.   Plea  of  gruilty.   Fine, ?10.     (F.  & D.  No.
6736.    I. S. No. 11269-k.)
On March 31, 1916, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United
 States for said district an information against?
Hymes Bros. Co., a corporation, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by?
said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on December 4, 1914,?
from the State of New York into the State of Indiana, of a quantity of oil?
of cajuput, which was adulterated and misbranded. The article was labeled:?
(Main label on green glass bottle) " Trade Mark Purity Quality Excellence?
Oil Cajeput Native Hymes Bros. Co. Essential Oils, Drugs, Vanilla Beans,?
Chemicals Importers and Manufacturers." (On paster) "Guaranteed by?
Hymes Bros. Co. U. S. Serial No. 18750. Guaranteed under the Food and?
Drugs Act, June 30, 1906." (Another paster) "22 Oz. Net Wgt." (Red paper?
seal over cork) " Hymes Bros. Co.    New York."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed the following results :
Specific gravity at 25? C?
     0. 9055
Rotation in 100 mm. tube?
(degrees)?+4.06
Copper: Present.
Soluble in all proportions of alcohol.?
Soluble in one volume of 80 per cent alcohol.?
Alcoholic solution is neutral to litmus.
Cineol by U. S. P. assay?
^?(percent)? 25
Cineol by fractionation and arsenic acid assay_ (per cent)?22. 7
Fraction distilling under 170 degrees?
(percent)?    9
Fraction distilling from 170-190 degrees?(percent)? 62
The oil is low in specific gravity,  is dextro-rotatory, contains?
copper, and is deficient in cineol.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
it was sold under and by a name recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia,?
and differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity, as determined?
by tests laid (down) in said Pharmacopoeia official at the time of investigation,?
in that the specific gravity of the drug at 25? C. was below 0.915, and was,?
in fact, 0.9055, whereas said Pharmacopoeia provides as a test for oil of cajuput?
that the specific gravity at 25? O. shall be between 0.915 and 0.925; the rota??
tion of said drug at 25? C. was more than ?2?, and was in fact +4.06?,?
whereas said Pharmacopoeia provides that the rotation of said drug at 25? C.?
should not exceed -?2?; and said drug contained 25 per cent of cineol, whereas
said Pharmacopoeia provides that it should contain not less than 55 per cent of?
cineol; furthermore, said drug contained copper, which is not an ingredient of?
oil of cajuput, as determined by the test laid down in said Pharmacopoeia.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, "Oil?
Cajeput," borne on the label, regarding the article and the ingredients and?
substances contained therein, was false and misleading, in that it indicated?
that said article was a pure oil of cajuput, which said drug is well known to?
be a product containing not less than 55 per cent of cineol and entirely free?
from copper, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not a pure oil of cajuput,?
. but was a product which contained only 25 per cent of cineol, and contained?
copper.
On April 17, 1916, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $10.
CABL VKOOMAN, Acting, Secretary of Agriculture.
52	
BUREAU   OF   CHEMISTRY:	
[Supplement21.