S449. 'Misbranding- of Antibrule. U. S. * * * v. 15 Bottles of Antibrule.?
Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (If.?
& D. No. 11825.    I. S. No. 7344-r.    S. No. C-1641.)
On or about December 22, 1919, the United States attorney for the Middle?
District of Tennessee, 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 15 bottles of Antibrule, remaining in the original?
unbroken packages at Nashville, Tenn., alleging that the article had been?
shipped by the Crescent Chemical Co., Ft. Worth, Texas, on or about June 30,?
1919, and transported from the State of Texas into the State of Tennessee, and?
charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended.?
The article was labeled in part, " Antibrule * * * Analgesic, Anodyne,?
Antiseptic, Antipyretic, * * * A Remedy for Croup, Tonsilitis, Carbuncles,?
Gonorrhoea, Leucorrhoea, Varicose Veins, Ulcers * * * Recommended for?
Eczema, Erysipelas, Nasal Catarrh and Itching Piles."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it consisted of an aqueous solution of picric acid con??
taining small amounts of picrates.
Misbranding of the article was alleged- in substance in the libel for the reason?
that the labels on the bottles contained the above-quoted statements, regarding
294	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 90.
the curative and therapeutic effects of said article, which were false and?
fraudulent in that the product contained no ingredient or combination of in??
gredients capable of producing the effects claimed in said statements.
On July 8, 1920, no claimant having appeared for the property, judgment of?
condemnation and forfeiture was 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.