10698.?Misbranding   of   Abbott   Bros,   compound   for   rheumatism.    U.    S..
*     *     *     v. 3 Dozen Bottles of Abbott Bros.  Compound for Rheia??
matism.     Default  deeree  of condemnation  and forfeiture.     Prod??
uct   ordered   disposed   of   according   to   law.     (F.   &   D.   No.   16306.?
I. S.  No. 13963-t.    S. No. W-1077.)
On May 10, 1922, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed im?
the District Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure-?
and condemnation of 3 dozen bottles of Abbott Bros, compound for rheumatism;,?
remaining in the original unbroken packages at Los Angeles, Calif., alleging?
that the article had been shipped by the Abbott Bros. Co., Berwyn, 111., on or?
about February 7, 1922, and transported from the State of Illinois into the?
State of California, and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and?
Drugs Act, as amended. The article was labeled in part: (Bottle) " * * *?
For Rheumatism * * * ;" (carton) " * * * For Rheumatism * * *?
Muscular, Articular, Inflammatory, * * * Sciatica, Rheumatic Neuritis,?
and Stiffness and Soreness of the Joints and Muscles, * * * Lumbago and?
all Muscular and Nerve Pains of Rheumatic Origin * * *;" (circular)?
" *    *    *    for Rheumatism    *    *    *"
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this-?
department showed that it consisted essentially of 8 per cent of potassium?
iodid, 1? per cent of extracts of plant drugs, including colchicum, 16.9 per?
cent of alcohol, and approximately 73 per cent of water, flavored with small?
quantities of aromatics, including methyl salicylate.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance in the libel for the~?
reason that the above-quoted statements, appearing on the labels and pack??
ages and in the accompanying circulars, were false and fraudulent since?
the said article contained no ingredient or combination of ingredients capable?
of producing the curative and therapeutic effects claimed.
On June 1, 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 disposed of by the United States marshal according to law;.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture:
392	
BUKEAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 144,