8963. Misbranding of Columbia Short Stop. U. S. * * * v. 6J Dozen Bottles of * * *?
Columbia Short Stop * * *. Heard ex parte by the court and a jury. Verdict for?
the Government.   Default decree  of condemnation, forfeiture,  and  destruction.
(F. & D. No. 10279.   I. S. No. 10381-r.   S. No. E-1407.)
On May 14, 1919, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of South. Caro??
lina, 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 condemnation of 6??
dozen bottles of an article, labeled in part   ''' Columbia Short Stop   *   *   *   Colum-
326	
BUREAU  OP   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 110.
bia Drug Co., Savannah, Ga.," remaining in the original unbroken packages at Co??
lumbia, S. C, alleging that the article had been shipped on or about August 27,?
1918, by the Columbia Drug Co., Savannah, Ga., and transported from the State?
of Georgia into the State of South Carolina, and charging misbranding in violation?
of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended.
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this department?
showed that it consisted of a mixture composed essentially of oil of sandalwood,?
balsam of copaiba, turpentine, ethyl nitrite, gum acacia, alcohol, and water, and?
flavored with lavender.
It was alleged in substance in the libel that the following words, declared, marked,?
printed, branded, and labeled in and upon the bottles, labels, cartons, and pack??
ages containing the article, regarding the curative and therapeutic effects of the?
same, "Columbia Short Stop for Gonorrhoea, Gleet, Running Range, Inflammation?
of the Kidneys and Bladder * * . * Continue taking several days after discharge?
stops *. * . *,-" were misleading, false, and fraudulent, and were made by the?
Columbia Drug Co., aforesaid, knowingly and in wanton disregard of the truth or?
falsity of the said statements and claims and with intent to deceive the purchasers?
of said product.
On June 21, 1920, no claim or appearance having been made, and the matter hav??
ing come on to be heard by the court and a jury, after the submission of testimony?
on behalf of the Government, a verdict was returned by the jury finding the prod??
uct misbranded as alleged. Thereupon, on motion of the United States attorney,?
a. default decree 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 oj Agriculture.