SSS7. Misbranding- of Damiann Compound with Saw Palmetto. II. S. * * *?
v. tO Dozen Packages of Dainiana Compound with Saw Palmetto.?
Default decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product ordered?
sold or destroyed.     (F. & D. No. 13570.     1. S. No. 9101-t.     S. No. E-2633.)
On August 25, 1920, the United States attorney for the Northern District of?
Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and con??
demnation of 10 dozen packages of Damiana Compound with Saw Palmetto,?
at Atlanta, Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped on or about June 2,?
1920, by the Hollander-Koshland Co., Baltimore, Md., and transported from the?
State of Maryland into the State of Georgia, and charging misbranding in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. The article was labeled?
on bottles and cartons : " For use in the treatment of Sexual Weakness * * *?
Loss of Manhood, Debility, Lack of Virility and Impotency * * * Psychic?
Impotence, Atonic Impotence, prostatorrhoea :' * * Spermatorrhoea;" (ad??
ditional on carton) " or Impotence    *    *    *    Sexual Weakness."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it was a solution containing damiana extractives, ferric?
iron, and mix vomica alkaloids.
It was alleged in substance in the libel that the above-quoted statements re??
garding the curative and therapeutic effects of the article, appearing on the?
packages and cartons containing the same, falsely and fraudulently represented?
it to be effective as a remedy, cure, and preventive of sexual weakness, loss of?
manhood, debility, lack of virility and impotency, psychic impotency, atonic?
impotence, prostatorrhea and spermatorrhea, whereas, in truth and in fact, it?
was not.
On October 6, 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 sold by the United States marshal after the destruction of?
the cartons containing the same and the removal of the labels from the bottles?
containing the product. It was provided, however, by the court, that if the sale?
could not be effected in such a way as to realize a substantial amount the?
product should be destroyed by the said marshal.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.