11501, Misbranding of Texas Wonder. U, S. v. 2 Dozen Bottles of Hall's, Texas Wonder. Default decree of condem.nation, fo:r.feitnre. aud destruction. (F. & D. No. 12868. S. No. E-2357.) On June 9, 1920, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district a libel praying the seizure and condemnation of 2 dozen bottles of Hall's Texas Wonder, remaining in the original unbroken packages at Rome, Ga., alleging that the article had been shipped by E. W. Hall, St. Louis, Mo., on or about May 5, 1920, and transported from the State of Missouri into tbe State of Georgia, and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. The article was labeled in part: "Hall's Texas Wonder * * * A Remedy For KWU#Y and Bladder Troubles Weak and Lame Backs, Rheumqtism and Gravel. Regulates Bladder Trouble in Children." Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department showed that it consisted essentially of copaiba, guaiac resin, extracts of rhubarb and colchicum, an oil similar to turpentine oil, alcohol, and water. Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance in the libel for the reas'On that the above-quoted statements regarding the therapeutic, curative, and preventive effects of the article, appearing on the cartons containing the same, were false and fraudulent in that the said statements were applied to the article so as to represent falsely and fraudulently to the purchaser thereof and to create in the mind of such purchaser the impression and belief that it was effective as a remedy, cure, and preventive of kidney and bladder troubles, weak and lame backs, rheumatism, gravel, and to regulate bladder trouble in children, whereas, in truth and in fact, it contained no ingredient or combination of ingredients capable of producing such effects. On November 19, 1920, 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.