SI53. Misbranding of Perlas Urinnles-Aiitisenticas. V. S. * * * v. 10?
Dozen Bottles and 2 Doseu Bottles of Perlas TJi'inales-AiitiseiJtieas.?
Default    decrees    of    condemnation,    forfeiture,    and    destruction.
(F.  & D.  Nos. .11268,   11269.    I.   S.   Nos.   17026-r,   17074-r.     S.  Nos.   E-1727,?
E-1731.)
On October 1, and October 4, 1919, the United States attorney for the Dis??
trict of Porto Rico, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed?
in the District Court of the United States for said district libels for the seizure?
and condemnation of 10 dozen bottles and 2 dozen bottles of a product, called?
" Perlas Urinales-Antisepticas," remaining in the original unbroken packages?
at San Juan, P. R., and Ponce, P. R., respectively, alleging that the article had?
been shipped by G. J. Fajardo, New York, N. Y., on or about February 27,?
1919, and by the Upjohn Co., New York, N. Y., on or about March G, 1919, and?
transported from the State of New York into the Island of Porto Rico, and?
charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended.?
The article was labeled in part, " Perlas Urinales-Antisepticas Distribuidas por
N.J. 8151-8200.]     SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	113
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it was composed of capsules which consisted essentially?
of methylene blue, cubebs, and nutmeg.
It was alleged in substance in the libels that the article was misbranded so?
as to deceive and mislead the purchaser or purchasers'thereof in that certain?
statements regarding the curative and therapeutic effects of the same, appear??
ing on the carton inclosing the bottles and in the circular accompanying the?
article, falsely and fraudulently represented it to be valuable in chronic cases?
of gonorrhoea and blennorrkcea, stimulating the excretion of the kidneys and?
assisting in making the whole urinary tract antiseptic, all cases of stricture, as?
a treatment of air catarrhal affections of the bladder due to infection, as an?
efficacious remedy for acute or chronic gonorrhoea, anterior and posterior?
urethritis, affection of prostate gland and all forms' of cystitis; that it was?
valuable in certain affections of the genito-urinary system, that it was indicated?
in pathogenic conditions of the genito-urinary organs which result in the for??
mation of pus, that it was of assistance in clarifying the urine and acted as a?
proplrylactic when there was a tendency toward cystitic calculi, concretions,?
gravel, etc.; as an internal treatment of gonorrhoea: and other inflammations?
of the gehito-urjnary passages, and of gout and acute and chronic inrlamination?
of the bladder and urethra, when, in 'truth and in fact, it was not.
On November 2G, 1919, no claimant having appeared for the product, judg??
ment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered in each case, and it was?
ordered  by the court  that the product be destroyed  by  the  United   States
marshal. v?-'
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.