7025. .Adulteration and misbranding' of Hostellcy's Syrup Hydriodic Acid. 
U. S. * * * v. William H. Hostelley (W. H. Hostelley & Co.). Plea 
of gnilty.     Fine, $50.     (F. & D. No. 10285.    I. S. No. 3820-p.)
On August 18, 1919, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against 
William II. Hostelley, trading as AY. H. Hostellej'- & Co., at Colliugdale, Pa., 
alleging shipment by said defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, 
as amended, on or about May II, 191S, from the State of Pennsylvania into the 
State of Maryland, of a quantity of an article, labeled in part " Hostelley'n 
Syrup Hydriodic Acid," which was adulterated and misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de- 
partment showed that it contained 0.66 per cent by weight of hydriodic acid, 
0.81 gram in 100 ec, a shortage from the minimum United States rharmaco- 
pceial requirement of 37.7 per cent and from the declared amount of 31 per 
cent.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that 
it was sold under and by a name recognized in the United States Pharma- 
copoeia and differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as pre- 
scribed by the tests laid down in said Pharmacopoeia, official at the time of 
invosfigation of said article, in that the article contained in 100 mils. 0.81 gram 
of hydriodic acid, whereas said Pharmacopoeia provides that sirup of hydriodic 
acid shall contain in 100 mils, not less than 1.3 grams of hydriodic acid, and 
the standard of strength, quality, and purity of the article was not declared on 
the containej- thereof; and for the further reason that the strength and purity 
of the article fell belo^ the professed standard and quality under which it was 
sold, in that it was sold as a product which contained 1 per cent absolute HI, 
to wit, 3 per cent hydriodic acid, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was a product 
which contained less than 1 per cent hydriodic acid, to wit, 0.6G per cent 
hydriodic acid.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement " One per cent 
absolute Ill.' borne on the labels attacJied to the bottles containing the article, 
regarding it and the ingredients and substances contained therein, was false 
and misleading in that it represented (hat the article contained 1 per cent Ill.
to wit, 1 per cent hydriodic acid, whereas, in truth and in fact, said article did 
not contain 1 per cent hydriodic acid, but did contain a less amount, to wit, 
0.66 per cent hydriodic acid. It was alleged, in substance, that the article was 
misbranded for the further reason that certain statements appearing on the 
labels of the bottles containing the same falsely and fraudulently represented 
it to be effective as a treatment, remedy, and cure for glandular enlargements, 
cirrhosis of the liver, catarrhal gastritis, malarial poisoning, acute rheuma- 
tism, and pulmonary difliculties, when, in truth and in fact, it was not.
On September 8 1919, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the informa- 
tion, and the court imposed a line of $50.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.