10613.?Misbranding   of   Pratt's   cow   remedy.    V.   S.     *      *     *     v.   12   Cans
* * * of Pratt'* Cow Remedy. Default decree of condemna??
tion, forfeiture, and destruction. (F. & D. No. 14883. Inv. No. 31433.?
S. No. E-3336.)
On April 22, 1921, the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey,?
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 12 cans of Pratt's cow remedy, remaining in the original unbroken packages?
at Hamm,onton, N. J., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Pratt?
Food Co., Philadelphia, Pa., on or about April 13, 1921, and transported from?
the State of Pennsylvania into the State of New Jersey, and charging misbrand??
ing in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de-,?
partment showed that it consisted essentially of a mixture, of salt, soda, Epsom?
salt, iron oxid, fenugreek, ginger, nux vomica, and gentian.
346	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 143,
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance in the libel for the reason?
that the statements borne on-the cans containing the said article, to wit,?
<?* * * jpor Barrenness * * * ,For Calves: For preventing or treating?
scours, * * * For Accidental Or Non-Contagious Abortion * * * Con??
tagious Abortion * * * Retained Afterbirth * * * Pratts Cow Remedy?
is- a tested compound to aid in the prevention and treatment of abortion?
(slinking of calves), barrenness (failure to breed), retained afterbirth?
* * '*," were false and frapdulent in that the said statements were applied to?
the article so as to represent falsely and to create in the minds of purchasers?
thereof the impression and belief that the said article possessed the curative?
and therapeutic qualities claimed for it, whereas, in truth and in fact, it con??
tained no ingredient or combination of ingredients capable of producing the?
effects claimed.
On February 9, 1922, 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 destroyed by the United States marshal.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.