C923.  Adulteration   and   misbranding1  of   oil   sweet   birch.     V.   S.    *    *    *    v.
7 Cans    *    *    *    of  Oil  Sweet Bircb.     Consent  decree  of  condemna??
tion  and  forfeiture.     Product  ordered  released  on  bond.     (F.  &  D.
No. 9367.     I. S. No. 8628-p.     S. No. C-978.)
On September 30, 1918, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of?
Michigan, 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 7 cans, each containing 50 pounds of so-called oil of?
sweet birch, remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at Detroit,?
Mich., alleging that the article had been shipped on July 29, 1918, by E. E.?
Dickinson & Co., Essex, Conn., and transported from the State of Connecticut'?
into the State of Michigan, and charging adulteration and misbranding in?
violation of the Food and. Drugs Act, as amended. The cases containing the?
cans were labeled " Oil Betula Lenta U. S. P.," and the product was invoiced?
as " Oil Sweet Birch."
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that it was?
sold under and by a name recognized in the United States Pharmacopceia,?
and differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as determined by?
the test laid down in said Pharmacopoeia, official at the time of investigation,?
and further in that its strength and purity fell below the professed standard?
and quality under which it was sold. Adulteration of the article was alleged?
for the further reason that a certain chemical, to wit, synthetic methyl?
salicylate, had been mixed and packed therewith so as to reduce and lower?
and injuriously affect its quality and strength, and had been substituted in?
part for the article.
Misbranding of the article was alleged *for the reason that it was an imita??
tion of, and was offered for sale under the name of, another article, and under?
the distinctive name of another article, and for the further reason that the?
name, " Oil Sweet Birch," used as a description of the article, was false and?
misleading. Misbranding of the article was alleged for the further reason?
that the quantity of the contents of said cans was not declaredon the label.
On January 21, 1919, Edward E. Dickinson, claimant, Essex, Conn., having?
consented to a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered,?
and it was ordered by the court that the product should be released to said?
claimant upon the payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution?
of a bond in the sum of $500, in conformity with section 10 of the act, con??
ditioned in part that the article should be properly relabeled under the super??
vision of this department.
C. F. MAEVIN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.