5271. Misbranding of " Dr. Bell's Pine Tar Honey." IT. S. * * * v. E. BJ. 
Sxa-tlierland Medicine Co., a corporation. Plea of guilty. Vine, 
$100.     (F. & D. No. 7691.    I. S. Nos. 3305-1, 3322-1.)
On December 19, 1916, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for said district an information against the 
E. E. Sutherland Medicine Co., a corporation, doing business at Philadelphia, 
Pa., alleging the sale by said company, on or about June 29, 1914, in violation 
of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, under a guaranty that the article was 
not misbranded within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, of a quantity of 
an article labeled in part, " Dr. Bell's Pine Tar Honey," which was a mis- 
branded article within the meaning of the said act, as amended, and which said 
article, in the identical condition in which it was received, was shipped by the 
purchaser thereof, on or about May 12, 1935, and July 14, 1915, from the State 
of Pennsylvania into the State of New York, in further violation of the said 
act as amended.
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart- 
ment showed it to be a hydroalcoholic solution containing ammonia, glycerin, 
pine tar, sassafras, capsicum, reducing sugars, an emodin bearing drug, and 
alkaloids.
It was charged, in substance, in the information that the article in the first 
shipment was misbranded for the reason that certain statements on the 
labels of its box and carton falsely and fraudulently represented it as a cure 
for croup, whooping cough, all soreness of the throat, chest, and lungs, and 
incipient consumption, and effective for the relief of all coughs and allaying 
inflammation of the throat, chest, lungs, and bronchial tubes, when, in truth 
and in fact, it was not. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason 
that certain statements included in the booklet accompanying the article 
falsely and fraudulently represented it as a cure of inflammation of the walls 
of the lungs, effective for reanimating the diseased lungs, spent and wounded 
by the cough, in restoring the normal activity in the interior linings of the 
stomach and in the mucous membranes of the nose, throat, bronchial tubes, 
and lungs, for destroying microbes and contagious diseases, restoring the 
lungs, strengthening the respiratory organs and giving vigor and vitality to 
the whole system, for making the blood receive a sufficient amount of oxygen, 
strengthening the blood and protecting the lungs against contagious diseases, 
as a remedy for and preventive of consumption, effective for giving permanent 
health to all the mucous membranes of the human body, for cicatrizing and 
cutting off the flow of pus and mucus, for curing the putrefaction and the 
poison of the microbes, killing and destroying infectious germs, for curing 
all inflammation and cicatrizing all infectious wounds, as a cure and preven- 
tive of catarrh, whooping cough, and grippe, for enriching the blood and 
creating good flesh, as a remedy for sore throat, as a cure and preventive of 
pneumonia, for preventing colds, for curing grippe, influenza, colds, and 
catarrh, as a specific for asthma and bronchitis, and as a remedy for diph- 
theria, when, in truth and in fact, it was not.
It was further charged, in substance, that the article in the second ship- 
ment was misbranded for the reason that certain statements appearing on 
the label of the carton falsely and fraudulently represented it as a cure for 
croup, whooping cough, all soreness of the throat, chest, and lungs, grippe, 
asthma, and incipient consumption, and effective for the relief of all coughs
and for allaying inflammation of the throat, chest, lungs, and bronchial tubes, 
when, in truth and in fact, it was not. Misbranding of the article in both 
shipments was alleged in substance for the further reason that it failed to 
bear a statement on the label of the wholesale box and the retail carton (or 
the label of the carton, as the case might be) of the quantity or proportion of 
alcohol contained therein.
On March 13, 1917, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the 
information, and the court imposed a fine of $100.
K. A. PEARSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 
27044°—18 4