6981. Misbranding of Jim Bom-land's Medicated Salt Block. TJ. S. * * *?
v. 10 Dozen Blocks of Jim Bourland's Medicated Salt Block. Prod??
uct   ordered  released  on  bond.     (F.   &  D.  No.  9364.     I.   S.  No.   10083-r.
S.  No. E-1124.)
On September 30, 1918, the United States attorney for the Eastern 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 a libel for the seizure?
and condemnation of 10 dozen blocks of Jim Bourland's Medicated Salt Block,?
remaining unsold in the original unbroken packages at St. Matthews, S. C,?
alleging that the article had been shipped on or about June 13, 1918, by Jim?
Bourland, Houston, Tex., and transported from the State of Texas into the?
State of South Carolina, and charging misbranding in violation of the Food?
and Drugs Act, as amended. The article was labeled in part, " Jim Bourland's?
Medicated Salt Block."
Examination of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed it to consist essentially of calcium sulphate, common salt,?
sulphur, and nux vomica.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that it?
contained no copperas, as alleged and claimed on the label or sticker of said?
product, and in substance for the further reason that the statements borne on?
the labels of the article, regarding its curative and therapeutic effects, to wit,?
" * * * por hogs * * * As a Cholera preventative * * *, Bourland's?
Medicated Salt Block * * * prevents * * * distemper, Texas fever,?
cholera    *    *    *," were misleading, false, and fraudulent.
On February 28, 1919, the cause having come on to be heard, and it appear??
ing that the said Jim Bourland, claimant, had paid the costs of the proceed??
ings and executed a bond in the sum of $100, in conformity with section 10?
of the act, it was ordered by the court that the product should be delivered to?
said claimant.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.