S602. Misbranding- of Hinkle Capsules. U. S. * * * v. 3 Dozen Pack??
ages of Hinkle Capsules. Default decree of condemnation, forfei??
ture, and destruction. (F. & D. No. 10449. I. S. No. 7785-r. S. No.?
C-1254.)
On May 29, 1919, the United States attorney for the Southern District of?
Ohio, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District?
Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and condem??
nation of 3 dozen packages of an;article;of cU'ugs, labeled in part " Hinkle Cap??
sules * Ji? * Manufactured only by the .Hinkle Capsule Company, Inc., May-?
field, Ivy.," consigned by said company on.or about April 5, 1919, alleging that?
the article had been shipped from Mayfield, Ky., and transported from the?
State of Kentucky into the State of Ohio, and charging misbranding in viola??
tion of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. The article was labeled in part:?
(Package) "Hinkle Capsules * * ' * For the treatment of Gleet, Leucorrhoea,?
Kidney and Bladder Affections, Mucous Discharges, Etc.;" (circular) "* * *?
catarrhal conditions of the urinary organs , * * . * for the successful treat??
ment of Urinary diseases * * * In affections of the Genito-Urinary organs?
* * * For the treatment of the more common Kidney and Bladder disorders?
. ?* ?* 
 in the relief of catarrhal condition of the urinary organs in advanced?
or chronic forms * * * scalding discharge, acute inflammation and irrita??
tion of the mucous members, prostate gland * * :* Kidney and Bladder?
Disorders   *   *   *   Catarrhal and mucous discharge   *   *   *."
Analysis of a sample of the-article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that the contents of ..the capsules consisted essentially of?
powdered cubebs and copaiba balsam, with small amounts of cannabis indica,?
pepsin, aud santal oil.
Misbranding of the article.was alleged in substance in the libel for the-reason?
that the package and label bore and contained the aforesaid statements, regard??
ing the curative or therapeutic effect of said drug, Avhich were false and fraudu??
lent in that it contained no ingredient or combination. of ingredients capable?
of producing the therapeutic effects claimed, and in that said product was?
insufficient of itself for the successful treatment and cure of the ailments and?
diseases for which it was prescribed and recommended in the aforesaid state??
ments.
On September 19, 1919, no claimant having appeared for the property, judg??
ment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, and it was ordered by the?
court that the product be destroyed by the United States marshal.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.