4869.  Misbranding of " White Stone Lithia Water."    U. S.    *     *     *     v. I,loyd?
C. Dillavd et al.    Plea of guilty.    Fine, $10.     (F. & D. No. 6711,    I. S.
No. 8695-h.)
On March 22, 1916, the United States attorney for the Western District of?
South Carolina, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in?
the District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
Lloyd C. Dillard, Spartanburg, S. C.; Bank of Spartanburg, and the Merchants?
& Farmers' Bank, and the First National Bank, Spartanburg, S. C, alleging?
shipment by said defendants, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as?
amended, on or about May 8, 1914, from the State of South Carolina into the?
State of Georgia, of a quantity of an article, labeled in part, " White Stone?
Lithia Water," which was misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed the following results, expressed as miligrams per liter:
IONS,
Silica   (Si02)?
?42.2
Sulphuric acid   (SO*)?
?194.6
Bicarbonic acid   (HCOs)?
?78.1
Chlorin   (CI)?
?3.0
Calcium   (Ca)?
?91.9
Magnesium  (Mg)?
?2.7
Sodium (Na) by difference?
?14.0
Lithium1   (Li)?
?0.0
Total?
426. f
HYPOTHETICAL COMBINATIONS.
Sodium chlorid (NaCl)?
     5.0
Sodium sulphate  (Na2SO*)?
   87.1
Magnesium bicarbonate   (Mg(HCOs)?)?,.?    16.2
Calcium sulphate  (CaSO*)?
240.2
Calcium bicarbonate (Ca(HOO?)?)?
   85.8
Silica   (SiO.)?
    42.2
Total___"?
426. 5
lNo weighable amount in 2 liters, about 0.006 mg per liter by spectroscope.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
the following statement regarding it and the ingredients and substances con??
tained therein, appearing on the label of the bottle containing it, to wit, " White?
Stone Lithia Water," was false and misleading in that it indicated to the pur??
chasers thereof that the article was lithia water, when, in truth and in fact, it?
was not. Misbranding of the article, considered as a drug, was alleged in sub??
stance for the further reason that certain statements appearing on its label?
falsely and fraudulently represented it as a cure for all liver, kidney, and?
bladder troubles, rheumatism, gout, all blood diseases, and indigestion, when,?
in truth and in fact, it was not.
On April 10, 1916, a plea of guilty having been entered on behalf of the?
defendants, the court imposed a fine of $10.
CABL VEOOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
500	
BUKEAU   OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[ Supplement 28