4086. Misbranding of various drugs. U. S. v. Arthur Cox. Plea of not guilty-
Tried to the court and jury. Verdict of guilty on 1 count and not guilty
on remaining 11 counts. Sentence of 1 year in jail. Appeal taken and
subsequently dismissed. (F. D. C. No. 31254. Sample Nos. 10869-L,
10915-L, 10916-L, 11283-L, 12055-L, 32108-L, 32453-L, 32454-L,
32456-L.)
INDICTMENT RETURNED : August 31,1951, Southern District of Indiana, against
Arthur Cox, Sullivan, Ind.
ALLEGED SHIPMENT : On or about March 4, 19, 26, 27, and 28, and April 1, 1951,.
from the State of Indiana into the States of Arkansas, Illinois, and Ohio, of
various quantities of drugs, some of which were accompanied by labeling con-
sisting of circulars entitled "Cooking Instructions For Herbs" and "United
States Patent Office."
NATURE OF CHARGE: Drug consisting of a large amount of leaves resembling
sunflower leaves, a small amount of eupatorium leaves and flowers, a trace of
mint and dogwood leaves, and unidentified leaf and stem fragments. Mis-
branding, Section 502 (a), a statement on the label of the article represented
and suggested that the article was a tonic, and a statement appearing in the
labeling accompanying a portion of the article represented and suggested that
such portion would be effective in the treatment of cancer. Such statements
were false and misleading since the article was not a tonic and would not be
effective in the treatment of cancer. Further misbranding, Section 502 (f) (1),.
the labeling of a portion of the article failed to bear adequate directions for
use in the treatment of cancer, which was the disease, symptom, and condition
for which the article was prescribed, recommended, and suggested orally by
the defendant; and the article failed also to bear adequate directions for use
since the labeling failed to reveal the conditions for which the article was to-
be used.
Drug consisting of a large amount of leaves resembling sunflower leaves
and a small amount of unidentified leaf and stem fragments. Misbranding,
Section 502 (a), certain statements in the accompanying labeling of the article
were false and misleading since they represented and suggested that the
article would be efficacious in the treatment of diabetes, whereas it would not
be efficacious for that purpose.
Drug consisting of a large amount of dogwood leaves, fruit, and bark, a.
small amount of eupatorium leaves and flowers, mint leaves, and unidentified
leaf and stem fragments. Misbranding, Section 502 (a), certain statements
in the accompanying labeling of the article were false and misleading since-
they represented and suggested that the article would be efficacious in the
treatment of diabetes, whereas it would not be efficacious for that purpose.
Drug consisting of a muddy, black aqueous liquid containing plant ex-
tractives. Misbranding, Section 502 (f) (1), the labeling of the article failed
to bear adequate directions for use in the treatment of psoriasis, which was the
disease, symptom, and condition for which the article was prescribed, recom-
mended, and suggested orally by the defendant, and the labeling of the article
failed also to bear adequate directions for use since the labeling failed to
reveal the conditions for which the article was to be used.
Drug consisting of a large amount of dogwood leaves, fruit, and bark, and
small amounts of eupatorium leaves and flowers, leaves resembling sunflower
leaves, and unidentified leaf and stem fragments. Misbranding, Section 502 (f)
(1) the labeling of the article failed to bear adequate directions for use in the
the article was prescribed, recommended, and suggested orally by the de-
fendant ; and the labeling of the article failed also to bear adequate directions
for use since the labeling failed to reveal the conditions for which the article
was to be used.
Drug consisting of a cloudy, aqueous liquid containing plant extractives
and having an offensive odor. Misbranding, Section 502 (f) (1), the labeling
of the article failed to bear adequate directions for use in the treatment of
vaginal trouble, which was the disease, symptom, and condition for which the
article was prescribed, recommended, and suggested orally by the defendant;
and the labeling of the article failed also to bear adequate directions for use
since the labeling failed to reveal the conditions for which the article was to
be used.
Drug consisting of a large amount of leaves resembling sunflower leaves
and small amounts of eupatorium leaves and flowers, dogwood leaves, and
unidentified leaf and stem fragments. Misbranding, Section 502 (f) (1), the
labeling of the article failed to bear adequate directions for use in the treat-
ment of drawing of muscles, which was the disease, symptom, and condition
for which the article was prescribed, recommended, and suggested orally by
the defendant; and the labeling of the article failed also to bear adequate
directions for use since the labeling failed to reveal the conditions for which
the article was to be used.
Drug consisting of a large amount of dogwood leaves, fruit, and bark, and
small amounts of eupatorium leaves and flowers, mint leaves, leaves resembling
sunflower leaves, and unidentified leaf and stem fragments. Misbranding,
Section 502 (f) (1), the labeling of the article failed to bear adequate direc-
tions for use in the treatment of drawing of muscles, which was the disease,
symptom, and condition for which the article was prescribed, recommended,
and suggested orally by the defendant; and the labeling of the article failed
also to bear adequate directions for use since the labeling failed to reveal the
conditions for which the article was to be used.
Drug consisting of petrolatum and tobacco. Misbranding, Section 502 (f)
(1), the labeling of the article failed to bear adequate directions for use in
the treatment of rectal fistula, which was the disease, symptom, and condition
for which the article was prescribed, recommended, and suggested orally by
the defendant; and the labeling of the article failed also to bear adequate
directions for use since the labeling failed to reveal the conditions for which
the article was to be used.
Drug consisting of a muddy, aqueous extract, flavored with peppermint and
containing nicotine. Misbranding, Section 502 (a), the word "Sinuses" dis-
played upon the label of the article was false and misleading. The word
represented and suggested that the article would be effective in the treatment
of diseases of the sinuses, whereas the article would not be effective for that
purpose.
Drug for use in the treatment of cancer (ingredients unknown). Misbrand-
ing, Section 502 (f) (1), the labeling of the article failed to bear adequate
directions for use in the treatment of cancer, which was the disease, symptom,
and condition for which the article was prescribed, recommended, and sug-
gested orally by the defendant; and the labeling of the article failed also to
bear adequate directions for use since the labeling failed to reveal the condi-
tions for which the article was to be used.
Further misbranding, Section 502 (b) (1) and (2), each of the articles
failed to bear a label containing the name and place of business of the manu-
facturer, packer, or distributor, and none of the articles bore a label containing
statements of the quantity of the contents.
DISPOSITION : The defendant filed a motion for dismissal of the indictment and
for an order subjecting the grand jurors, the district attorney, and the stenog-
raphers to examination under oath, in open court, as to the grand jury pro-
ceedings. This motion was overruled on February 12, 1952. The defendant
then entered a plea of not guilty, and on September 22, 1952, the case came
on for trial before the court and jury. The trial was concluded on September
30,1952, with the return by the jury of a verdict of guilty on the count relating
to the drug which consisted of a muddy, black aqueous liquid containing plant
extractives, and a verdict of not guilty on the remaining 11 counts relating to
the other drugs. On January 12, 1953, the court sentenced the defendant to
1 year in jail. An appeal was taken by the defendant to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and was dismissed on April 22,
1953, because of the defendant's failure to perfect his appeal.