11J 74. Adulteration of chloroform. V. S. v. 800 and 1,500 Tins of Chloro?? form, Default decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product? ordered disposed of according: to law. (F. & D. No. 16469. I. S. Nos.? 13973-t, 18974-t. S. Nos. W-1108, W-1121.) On June 26, 1922, 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 a libel for the seizure? and condemnation of 2,300 tins of chloroform, remaining in the original un?? broken packages at Los Angeles, Calif., consigned from New York, N. Y.,? alleging that the article had been shipped in part on or about March 7, 1922,? and in part on or about March 10, 1922, and transported in interstate com- 98 BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY. [Supplement 154, meree, and charging adulteration in violation of the Food and Drugs Act.? The article was labeled in part: " Chloroform * * * For Anaesthesia." Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart?? ment showed that the chloroform in the consignment of March 7 was turbid,? upon evaporation it left a foreign odor, and it contained hydrochloric acid,? free chlorin, impurities decomposable by sulphuric acid, and chlorinated decom?? position products, and that the chloroform in the consignment of March 10? was turbid, upon evaporation it left a foreign odor, and it contained chlorids? and chlorinated decomposition products. Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that it was? sold under and by a name recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, and? differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity as determined by? the test laid down in said Pharmacopoeia, official at the time of investigation. On July 25, 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 according to law. C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.