4?91., Misbranding of ? Booth's Hyomei Dri-Ayr."    V.  S.   *    *    *   v. Booth's?
Hyomei   Co.,  a   corporation.     Plea   of  nolo   contenclex-e.     Fine,   SplO.
(P. &. D. No. 6186.    I. S. No. 9610-e.)
On June 22, 1915, the United States attorney fo1* the Western 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?
Booth's Hyomei Co., a corporation, Buffalo, N. Y., alleging shipment by said?
company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about?
January 10, 1913, from the State of New York into the State of Maryland,?
of a quantity of an article labeled, in part, "Booth's Hyomei Dri-Ayr," which?
was misbrancled.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed the following results:
Alcohol  (per cent by volume)?
-?      9.89
Nonvolatile matter at 110? C. (grams per 100 cc)?
      9.81
Tests made on volatile oil:
Polarization at 25? C. (100 mm tube)   (?V)?
  ?5.6
Polarization at 25? C. (100 mm tube)  ("angular)??1.94
Phellandrene: Large amount present.
Cineol  (percent)   (approximate)?
    20.00
The oil is soluble in 3 volumes of 70 per cent alcohol; the?
nonvolatile residue consists of a small amount of resin-like solid?
and a mineral oil; it gives no test for rosin oil.
The product apparently consists essentially of oil of eucalyptus,?
together with a small amount of resin-like solids and a mineral?
oil; also a little alcohol.    Oil of eucalyptus not U. S. P.
It was charged in substance in the information that the article was mis-?
branded for the reason that the statements on the label falsely and fraudu??
lently represented it as a remedy for catarrh, asthma, bronchitis, and hay?
fever, and further in that the statements included in the booklet accompanying?
the article falsely and fraudulently represented it as a remedy for catarrhal?
deafness, and hay fever, and as a cure for asthma and catarrh when, in?
truth and in fact, it was not.
On November 22, 1916, the defendant company entered a plea of nolo con??
tendere to the information, and the court imposed a fine of $10.
GAEL VROOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N.J.4931-3000.]       SERVICE  AND  REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	657