10993.?Misbranding: of Cholerine.    V.  S. v. Germo Mfg. Co., a Corporation.
Plea of guilty. Fine, $101. (F. & D. No. 14918. I. S. Nos. 3122-r,?
3123-r.)
On August 30, 1921, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
California, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
the Germo Mfg. Co., a corporation, Los Angeles, Calif., alleging shipment by?
said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or?
about March 19, 1920, from the State of California into the State of Oregon,?
of quantities of Cholerine, a portion of which, in liquid form, was contained in?
bottles, and the remainder of which, in tablet form, was contained in sacks,?
all of which were misbranded. The bottles were labeled in part: " Cholerine?
* * * Germo Manufacturing Co., Los Angeles, Cal." The sacks were labeled?
in part: " Cholerine For Fowls * * * Germo Manufacturing Company?
Germo Building Los Angeles, U. S. A."
Analyses of samples of the article, by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment/ showed that the liquid consisted essentially of small proportions of mag??
nesium sulphate, iron sulphate, sulphuric acid, and extract of red pepper, with?
a large proportion of water (96 per cent), and some undissolved iron oxid, and?
that the tablets consisted essentially of magnesium sulphate, iron sulphate,?
iron oxid, aluminium silicate, a calcium compound, gum, and milk sugar,?
flavored with saffrol.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance in the information for?
the reason that certain statements appearing in the labels of the bottles con??
taining a portion of the said article, and certain statements appearing on?
the cartons and sacks containing the remainder of the article and in the circu??
lars enclosed in said cartons, regarding the curative and therapeutic effect of?
the said article, falsely and fraudulently represented that the product contained?
in said bottles was effective as a remedy and cure for cholera, roup, limber-?
neck, white diarrhea, and other germ diseases in poultry, and that the product?
contained in said sacks was effective as a remedy, treatment, and cure for?
chickenpox, roup, cholera, limberneck, and white diarrhea in poultry and for?
worms and cholera in hogs, when, in truth and in fact, it contained no ingredi??
ents or combination of ingredients capable of producing the effects claimed.
On June 5, 1922, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf of?
the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $101.
C. W. PuGsrarr, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.