S I02. Misbranding; of Chnr-JIed-Sal. V. S. * ? * v. 24 10-Pound Boxes?
and 12 20-Pound Boxes, More or Less, of a Product Labeled in Part?
" Clinr-Med-Sal * * * Hog Raisers * * ? Blackmail Stock?
Itemedy Company, Chattanooga, Tenn." Default decree of con??
demnation and forfeiture. Product released on bond. (F. & D.?
Xos. 917S, 9179, 9259, 92G0.    I. S. Nos. 10013, 10023.    S. Nos. C-939, C-95S.)
On August G, 1918, and on or about August 1G, 1918,. the United States?
attorney for the Eastern District of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Seere-
1 'Hie product was returned to Woods Cross, Utah, and there destroyed by the manu??
facturer.
30815??21?1?
267
268	
BUREAU  OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 00,
tary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court; of the United States for said?
district libels for the seizure and condemnation of certain quantities of a?
certain article, labeled in part " Char-Med-Sal," at Stonefort, Cypress, and?
Sparta, I1L, consigned on or about May 18, 1018, and June 4, 1918, by the?
Blackmail Stock Remedy Co., Chattanooga, Tenn., alleging that the article was?
transported from the State of Tennessee into the State of Illinois, and charging?
misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended.
Analyses of samples of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this depart??
ment showed that it consisted of a mixture composed essentially of sodium?
chlorid, charcoal, iron oxid, sulphur, sulphates of iron and magnesium, and a?
small amount of strychnine.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the libels in that certain state??
ments appearing on the label on the package containing the article, regarding?
its curative or therapeutic effects, falsely and fraudulently represented it to be?
effective as a remedy for the prevention of liog cholera, whereas, in truth and?
in fact, it was not effective.
The above case having been consolidated, on July 11, 1919, the Blackman?
Stock Remedy Co:, claimant, having withdrawn its answer and claim, a default?
decree of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the?
court that the product bo released to the claimant upon the payment of the?
costs of the proceedings, and the filing of a bond in the sum of .$2,000, in con??
formity with section 10 of the act.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.