5652. Adulteration and misbranding of purified -wool fat. V. S. * ? * v. 
lO Crates ? * * of * * * Purified Wool Fat. Consent decree of 
condemnation and forfeiture.    Produet released on bond.    (F. & D.
No. 7469.    I. S. No. 614-1.    S. No. BS-629.)
On May 26, 1916, the United States attorney for the Eastern 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 a libel for the seizure and 
condemnation of 10 crates, each containing two cans of approximately 45 
pounds, each, of purified wool fat, remaining unsold in the original unbroken 
packages at Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging that the article had been shipped on or 
about March 17, 1916, by the Hilton Chemical Co., Baltimore, Md., and trans- 
ported from the State of Maryland into the State of New York, and charging 
adulteration and misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The 
article was labeled in part, " Purified Wool Fat Lord Baltimore Brand Lanum 
Anhydrous Neutral and Non-Irritating Ointment and Cream Base. Hilton 
Chemical Co., Incorporated, Baltimore^ Md."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that it was 
sold under a name recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, but dif- 
fered from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as determined by the 
test laid down in said United States Pharmacopoeia, and for the further rea- 
son that its strength and purity fell below the professed standard and quality 
under which it was sold, in that it was sold as lanum, or purified wool fat, 
whereas, in truth and in fact, it contained 50 per cent petroleum products.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance for the reason that the 
statement  appearing  on  the  label,  to  wit,   " Purified  Wool  Fat   *    *   * 
Lanum," was false and misleading in that said product contained 50 per cent 
petroleum products, and for the further reason that it was an imitation of, and 
offered for sale under the name of, another article.
On July 27, 1916, the said Hilton Chemical Co., claimant, having admitted 
the allegations of the libel and consented to a decree, judgment of condemna- 
tion and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the court that the prod- 
uct should be released to said claimant upon payment of the costs of the pro- 
ceedings and the execution of a bond in the sum of $500, in conformity witk 
section 10 of the act.
O. F. MABVTN, Aetinff Secretary of Agriculture.