20750. Misbranding of Sister Mary's compound. C. S. v. "William R. Griffin 
(Stanley-Griffin Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $25. Sen- 
tence suspended.     (F. & D. no. 28059.    I. S. nos. 36001, 40321.)
Examination of the drug preparation, Sister Mary's compound, disclosed 
that it contained no ingredient or combination of ingredients capable of pro- 
ducing certain curative and therapeutic effects claimed on the bottle and carton 
labels and in a circular shipped with the article. Analyses showed that the 
article was not a mixture of simple natural ingredients, or a combination of 
nature's remedies, as claimed in the circular.
On February 8, 1933, the United States attorney for the District of Massa- 
chusetts, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an information 
against William R. Griffin, trading as the Stanley-Griffin Co., Lowell, Mass., 
alleging shipment by said defendant in violation of the Food and Drugs Act 
as amended, on or about May 28, 1931, from the State of Massachusetts into 
the State of Wisconsin, and on or about October 4, 1931, from Massachusetts 
to Iowa, of quantities of Sister Mary's compound that was misbranded. The 
article was labeled in part: " Sister Mary's Compound * * * Stanley- 
Griffin Co. Roche & Griffin, Mfgrs. Lowell Mass."
Analysis of a sample of the article by this Department showed that it 
consisted essentially of small proportions of extracts of plant drugs, sulphur, 
cream of tartar, charcoal and menthol, glycerin, sugar, and water.
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded in that 
certain statements, designs, and devices, regarding its curative and therapeutic 
effects, appearing on the labels of the bottles and cartons, falsely and fraudu- 
lently represented that it was effective as a treatment, remedy, and cure for 
ailments of the stomach, throat, and lungs, and as a blood purifier and body 
builder; effective as a treatment, remedy, and cure for indigestion, dizziness, 
biliousness, nervousness, auto-intoxication, catarrh and other poisonous and 
irritating conditions and ailments of the throat and mouth, bronchitis, laryn- 
gitis, pharyngitis, tonsillitis, and other throat ailments, thin and impoverished 
blood, pimples, sallow skin, wasting diseases of the stomach, throat, lungs, 
and kidneys, coughs, whooping cough and worms; effective as a preventive in 
diseases of children; effective as a treatment, remedy, and cure for ailments 
of the stomach, throat, lungs, bowels, and blood; effective as a general tonic 
for loss of flesh; and effective as a treatment for consumption. Misbranding 
was alleged for the further reason that certain statements, designs, and devices 
regarding the curative and therapeutic effects of the article, appearing in the 
circular, falsely and fraudulently represented that it was effective as a treat- 
ment, remedy, and cure for nerve diseases, stomach trouble, indigestion, sour- 
ness, burning, gas, nausea, and bloating, disease of the heart, liver and kidneys; 
effective as a remedy to restore that vigorousness that means health; effective 
as a preventive of tuberculosis; effective as a blood purifier and body builder; 
effective as a remedy for worms; effective as a treatment, remedy, and cure 
for throat and bronchial troubles; effective as an ideal healing agent for all 
irritations of the throat; effective as a treatment, remedy, and cure for 
bronchitis, hoarseness, croup and bronchial asthma, stomach and lung trouble; 
effective as a preventive treatment and remedy for children's diseases; effective 
as a treatment, remedy, and cure for stomach and intestinal trouble; and 
effective as a treatment, remedy, and cure for coughs, and for consumption. 
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the following statements 
appearing in the circular, " Sister Mary's Compound is a mixture of simple, 
natural ingredients. This preparation is a combination of Nature's remedies ", 
were false and misleading, since the article was not a mixture of simple, natural 
ingredients, and was not a combination of nature's remedies.
On March 13, 1933, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the 
information and the court imposed a fine of $25, which.sentence was suspended.
R. G. TUGWEIX, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.