5419.?Misbranding of Dr. Burkliart's Vegetable Compound. TJ. S. * * ? v. 9 Dozen Packages of Dr. BiirOklmrt's Vegetable Componnd. De?? fault decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (F. & -D, -Nos, 13004, 130G5. I. S. Nos. 7801-t, 7802-t. S. Nos. E-2453, E-2454.) On July 22, 1920, 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 libels for the seizure and? condemnation of certain quantities of an article, labeled in part "Dr. Burk-? .hart's Vegetable Compound," at Philadelphia, Pa., consigned by Dr. W. S. Burk-? hart, Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging that the article had been shipped on or about? April 28, 1920, and May 10, 1920, from Cincinnati, Ohio, and transported from? the State of Ohio into the State of Pennsylvania, and charging misbranding in? violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de?? partment showed that the product was composed essentially of aloes and other? plant material containing resins, probably podophyllum' and a small amount of? capsicum. Misbranding of the article was alleged in the libels in that certain state?? ments appearing on the label on the package containing the article, regarding? its curative or therapeutic effects, falsely and fraudulently represented the? article to be effective as a remedy for kidney and liver disease, fever and? ague, rheumatism, sick and nervous headache, erysipelas, scrofula, female com?? plaints, catarrh, indigestion, neuralgia, nervous affection, dyspepsia, and all? syphilitic diseases, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not effective. On August 12, 1920, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgments? of condemnation and forfeiture were entered, and it was ordered by the court? that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal. E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.