S726. Misbranding- of Bourbon Poultry Reined; anil Bonrton Hog: Cholera?
Remedy. V. S. * * * v. 35 Bottles of Bourbon Poultry Remedy?
and 11 Bottles of Bourbon Hog: Cbolera Remedy. Default decree?
of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction. (F. & D. Nos. 11576,?
11577.     I.  S. Nos. 8347-r, 8348-r.     S. Nos. C-1572, C-1573.)
On November 26, 1919, the United States attorney for the Southern District?
of Ohio, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the Dis??
trict Court of the United States for said district a libel for the seizure and?
condemnation of 35 bottles of Bourbon Poultry Remedy and 11 bottles of Bour??
bon Hog Cholera Remedy, consigned by the Bourbon Remedy Co., Lexington, Ky.,?
on August 30, 1919, remaining unsold in the original packages at London, Ohio,?
alleging that the article had been transported from the State of Kentucky into?
the State of Ohio, and charging misbranding in violation of the Food and Drugs?
Act, as amended.
Analyses of samples of the articles by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that both preparations consisted essentially of aqueous solu??
tions containing aloes, free sulphuric acid, sulphates of iron, copper and magne??
sium, coloring, and flavoring.
It was alleged in substance in the libel that the poultry remedy was mis-?
branded in that the packages purported to contain a product for the cure of?
roup, gapes, diarrhea, and certain other poultry diseases only by reason of state??
ments on the labels thereof, whereas, in truth and in" fact, said packages?
[statements] were false and misleading [fraudulent] in that the product had?
but little or no ingredients capable of producing the curative and therapeutic?
effects claimed therefor.
It was alleged in substance that the hog cholera remedy was misbranded for?
the reason that the packages purported to contain a product for the cure of?
cholera, scours, cough, thumps, etc., only by reason of the statements on the?
labels thereof, whereas, in truth and in fact, said packages [statements] were?
false and misleading [fraudulent] in that the product had but little or no in??
gredients capable of producing the curative and therapeutic effects claimed?
therefor.
154	
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 105,
On October 25, 1920, no claimant having appeared for tliG 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.