10345. Misbranding of Deer Iiiek Springs water. V. S. * * * v. 32?
Cases * * * of Deer Lick Springs Water. Consent decree of?
condemnation and forfeiture.    Product released nnder bond.    (F. &
D. No. 14822.    I. S. No. 6526-t.    S. No. E-3254.)
On April 22, 1921, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
New York, 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 22 cases of Deer Lick Springs water, remaining unsold in the?
original unbroken packages at New York, N. Y., alleging that the article had?
been shipped from San Francisco, Calif., on or about December 11, 1920, and?
transported from the State of California into the State of New York, and?
charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. The?
article was labeled in part: (Bottle) "Deer Lick Springs Water A Natural?
Medicine from Mother Earth A Valuable Aid to Physicians in the treatment?
of Diabetes, Cystitis, Bright's Disease, Acne, Eczema, Rheumatism An Inter??
nal Antiseptic * * * Directions: * * * In extreme cases increase dose?
to six ounces until improvement is noticed. * * * Bottled * * * by?
California Medicinal Springs. Company San Francisco, U. S. A.    *    *    *."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed that the dissolved mineral matter consisted chiefly of chlorids of?
sodium, magnesium, and calcium, sulphate and bicarbonate of calcium, and?
sulphid of sodium.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that the?
above-quoted statements appearing on the bottle labels, regarding the curative?
and therapeutic effects of the said article, were false and fraudulent for the?
reason that the article did not contain any ingredient or combination of ingre??
dients capable of producing the effects claimed.
On March 16, 1922, the California Medicinal Springs Co., San Francisco,?
Calif., claimant, having admitted the allegations of the libel and having con??
sented to a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and?
it was ordered by the court that the product be released to the said claimant?
upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in?
the sum of $250, in conformity with section 10 of the act, conditioned in part?
that it be relabeled under the supervision of this department with labels in?
which the statements, "A Sulphur Water of Exceptional Potency * * *?
A Natural Tonic," had been substituted for the above-quoted curative and ther??
apeutic claims.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.