9031. Misbranding of Gillen's  Cholera Remedy.   V. S.   *   *   *   v.  130 Bottles of   *   *   *
Gillen's Cholera Remedy. Heard by the court and a jury. Verdict for the Govern- 
ment.   Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.   (F. & D. No.
10389.   I. S.No. 16387-r.   S. No. E-1465.)
On May 27, 1919, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of South Caro- 
lina, 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 120 
bottles of Gillen's Cholera Remedy, remaining in the original unbroken packages at 
Columbia, S. C. alleging that the article had been shipped by the Gillen Remedy Co., 
Atlanta, Ga., on or about April 23, 1919, and transported from the State of Georgia into 
the State of South Carolina, and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and 
Drugs Act, as amended. The article was labeled in part: "Gillen's Cholera Remedy 
For Hogs & Chickens * .* * Gillen Remedy Company Atlanta, Ga.;" "Gillen's 
Cholera Remedy For Hogs & Chickens * . * * For Hogs: When afflicted with 
cholera, * * * As a Preventative for cholera and to remove worms and as a gen- 
eral tonic give two doses a week. For Fowls: When afflicted with cholera, sorehead 
and roup, and white diarrhea in little chicks, give * * * twice a day. * * * 
As a Preventative for cholera, sorehead and roup   *   *   *.n
Analysis of a" sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department 
showed that it consisted essentially of an aqueous solution of saponified tar oil and 
sodium sulphate.
It was alleged in substance in the libel that the article Was misbranded in that the 
above-quoted statements appearing upon the packages and bottles, regarding the 
curative and therapeutic effects of the article, were misleading, false, and fraudulent, 
and the said statements were made by the Gillen Remedy Co. knowingly and in 
wanton disregard of their truth or falsity, and with intent to deceive purchasers 
thereof.
On June 21,1920, no claimant having appeared for the property, and the case having 
come on to be heard ex parte before the court and a jury, after the submission of testi- 
mony on behalf of the Government, a verdict was returned by the jury finding the 
goods misbranded as alleged. Thereupon, on motion of the United States attorney, 
a default decree 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.