4983. Blisbranding- of " Professor C. B. Mattfaai's Victory." U. S. * * * v.?
Margarete E. Matthai (Prof. C. B. Matthai), Plea of nolo conten??
dere.     Fine, $100 and costs.     (F. & D. No. 5680.    I.  S. No. 1137-k.)
On October 10, 1916, the United States attorney for the District of Maryland,?
acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court?
of the United States for said district an information against Margarete E.?
Matthai, trading as Prof, O. E. Matthai, Baltimore, Md., alleging shipment by?
said defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about?
December 16, 1914, from the State of Maryland into the District of Columbia,?
of a quantity of an article labeled, in part, " Professor C. E. Matthai's Victory,"?
which was misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed the following results:
Alcohol (per cent by volume)?
49.0
Opium (grains per fluid ounce)?
    1.2
Camphor and volatile oil (per cent by volume)?.?    3. 5
Capsicum: Present.?
Eugenol: Present.
Contents of bottle (fluid ounces)?
   1. 6
Opium content (grains per bottle)?
   1.9
It was alleged in substance in the information that the article was misbranded?
for the reason that the statements regarding the therapeutic or curative effects?
thereof appearing on its label and in the circular accompanying it falsely and?
fraudulently represented it as a remedy for sore throat, diphtheria, cholera,?
dysentery, diarrhea, neuralgia, and hoarseness, and for rheumatism, dyspepsia,?
sprains, and bites of reptiles and animals, and for scarlet fever, measles, yellow?
fever, fever and ague, and bilious attacks; as a cure for dyspepsia, for asthma,?
and bronchitis arising from cold or disordered stomach; as a remedy for epi??
lepsy, inflammation of the kidneys and bladder, diabetes, and all diseases of the?
bladder: for the relief of sunstroke; and when used on red flannel over the?
stomachs of children, as a remedy for spasms, when, in truth and in fact, it?
was not.
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article contained?
alcohol and opium, and the label failed to bear a statement of the quantity or?
proportion of alcohol and opium contained therein. Misbranding was alleged?
for the further reason that the statements, to wit, "Alcohol 34?, opium 1.1 gr.,"?
borne on the wrapper of the article, were false and misleading for the reason?
that they indicated to the purchaser that the article contained not more than?
34 per cent of alcohol and not more than 1.1 grains of opium, whereas, in truth?
and in fact, it contained more than the percentages named of alcohol and opium,?
to wit, 49 per cent of alcohol and 1.9 grains of opium.
On October 10, 1916, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $100 and costs.
GAEL VBOOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture,
648	-       - -	
BTJBEATJ  OF CHEMISTEY.	
[Supplement SO?