2824. Misbranding of Meriek Mineral ''Water. U. S. v. 32% Cases of Meriek 
Mineral Water. Trial toy jury; verdict for the Government. Judgment 
of condemnation and destruction.     (F. D. C. No. 2234.     Sample No. 7399--E.)
. The labeling of this product, which had the approximate composition of sea 
water, bore false and misleading representations regarding its efficacy in the 
conditions indicated below.
On June 22, 1940, the United States attorney for the District of Arizona filed 
a libel against 32% cases of Meriek Mineral Water at Phoenix, Ariz., alleging 
that the article had been shipped in interstate commerce on or about May 18, 
1940, by Lee Brothers from Oakland, Calif.; and charging that it was mis- 
branded.
It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement on the bottle label, 
"Meriek is sold only to help supply minerals for mineral deficiencies," was false 
and misleading as applied to an article that had the approximate composition of 
sea water. It was alleged to be misbranded further in that representations 
appearing in a circular accompanying the article entitled "Have You Eaten 
Today? Did You Get the Necessary Minerals?" which recommended it for per- 
sons who are "cross,. tired,- misbehaving, naughty," or suffering from nervous 
collapse, excess acid, rundown conditions, and many other diseases,. and that it 
was valuable in the maintenance of health, for proper growth, for the teeth, for 
the blood and for life, were false and misleading when considered in the light 
of the composition of the product and the dosage recommended.
On July 20, 1940, M. E. Lee and Ned Johnson, claimants, filed an answer to 
the libel admitting the shipment in interstate commerce but denying that the 
product was a drug or that it was misbranded when shipped in interstate 
commerce.    On December 10, 1940, the case came up for trial before a jury.
The taking of testimony was concluded on December 19, 1940, on which date 
the jury returned a verdict for the Government. On January 6, 1941, judgment 
was entered condemning the product and ordering that it be destroyed.
The libel also charged that the product was misbranded under the provisions 
of the law applicable to drugs, as reported-in D: D. N. J. No. 513. The court's 
instructions to the jury are reported in the drug notice.