8553. Misbranding,- of Mnrphey'8 Second Summer Remedy. V. S. * * ?*??
v. Edward Kirkwood. Plea of guilty. Fine, $25. (F. & D. No. 10778.?
I. S. No. 8837-p.)
On October 9, 1919, the United States attorney for the Western District of?
Kentucky, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
Edward Kirkwood, Madisonville, Ky., alleging shipment by said defendant, in?
violation of the Pood and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about August 3, 1917,?
from the State of Kentucky into the State of Indiana, of a quantity of an?
article, labeled in part " Murphey's Second Summer Remedy The Baby's Friend?
* * * Manufactured only by Murphey Medicine Co., Incorporated, Madison-:?
ville, Ky.," which was misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it was an emulsion consisting essentially of an aqueous,?
mixture containing alcohol, sugar, nonvolatile oil (castor oil), plant material,?
and traces of peppermint oil and morphine.
It was alleged in substance in the information that the article was mis-?
branded for the reason that certain statements regarding the therapeutic and?
curative effects thereof, appearing on the labels of the bottles and cartons and?
in a circular contained in the package inclosing the article, falsely and fraudu-,?
lently represented it to be effective as a treatment for teething, as a treatment,?
remedy, and cure for second summer complaint and bowel troubles with teething?
children, and as a cure for flux, when, in truth and in fact, it was not.   Mis-
N. J. 8551-8600.]       SERVICE  AND  REGULATORY  ANNOUNCEMENTS.	31
branding was alleged for the further reason that certain statements, to wit,?
" The Baby's Friend " and " Guaranteed by Murphey Medicine Co., under the?
Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906," borne on the cartons and bottles aforesaid,?
regarding the article and the ingredients and substances contained therein, were?
false and misleading in that they represented that the article was a preparation?
which could be administered to infants with safety to health, and that it con??
formed with the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act, whereas, in truth?
and in fact, the article could not be administered to children with safety to?
health, in that it contained opium which rendered it unsafe to be administered?
to children, and it did not conform with the requirements of the Food and?
Drugs Act.
On November 24, 1919, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the informa??
tion, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
B. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.