5509.?Misbranding-  of  Palmo  Tablets.     U.   S.    *      *     *     v.  2S Packages   of
Palino Tablets. Uefault decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and?
destruction.     (F. & D. No. 13609.    Inv. No. 26G25.    S. No. C-2361.)
On or about September 3, 1920, the United States attorney for the Northern?
District of Illinois, 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 28 packages of Palmo Tablets, at Chicago, 111.,?
alleging that the article had been shipped by the McCullough Drug Co., Law-?
renceburg, Inch, May 31, 1920, and transported from the State of Indiana into?
the State of Illinois, and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and?
Drugs Act, as amended.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed that the tablets consisted essentially of plant extractives, includ??
ing damiana and nux vomica, iron phosphate, and a small amount of phosphorus.
It was alleged in substance in the libel that the article was misbranded in?
that the following statements regarding the curative or therapeutic effect?
thereof, (box) "A * * * remedy for many Nervous Disorders * * *?
irritability, weakness, depression, etc. * * * for men or women who are?
run-down generally and who lack energy or ambition," (circular) "No one can?
attain * * * success * * * without an abundance of vitality or nerve?
force * * * excesses of the usual kind * * * may bring about this con??
dition * * * we have * * * reliable treatment for just such cases?
? * * Palmo Tablets re-animate and re-vitalize. They are * * * for?
Nervous Exhaustion or Debility, Depression or Despondency, Irritability,?
Fretfulness, Fidgets, Lack of Tone," falsely and fraudulently represented it to?
be effective as a remedy for the various diseases, ailments, and afflictions men??
tioned upon the label of the boxes containing the article and in the circular?
inclosed therein, whereas, in truth and in fact, it was not.
On November 23, 1920, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg??
ment 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.