11273.?Misbranding of Pratts  cow remedy.    TJ.  S, v. 6 Packages  of Pratts
Cow   Remedy.     Default   decree   of   condemnation,   forfeiture,   and?
destruction.     (F. & D. No. 14467.    I. 8. No. 4774-t.    S. No. C-2805.)
On February 21, 1921, the United States attorney for the Northern District?
of Texas, 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 packages of Pratts cow remedy, remaining in the original?
packages at Fort Worth, Tex., alleging that the article had been shipped by?
the Pratt Food Co., Chicago, 111., on or about June 17, 1920, and transported?
from the State of Illinois into the State of Texas, and charging misbranding?
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended. The article was labeled?
in part: " Pratts Cow Remedy is a tested remedy and preventive for Con??
tagious Abortion, Barrenness (Failure to Breed), Garget, Milk Fever * * *?
For Barrenness * * * For Milk Fever And Garget * * * Prevents?
retained afterbirth * * * For Calves: For preventing or treating scours?
* * * Pratts Cow Remedy will assist in rendering the bull's service more?
sure, particularly where contagious abortion has appeared in the herd * * *?
For Accidental Or Contagious Abortion * * * To Prevent: In herds where?
cows have previously aborted, or in neighborhoods where disease exists * * *?
Contagious Abortion * * * Retained Afterbirth * * * Pratts Cow?
Remedy Is A Medicinal Specific for diseases of cows * * * preventive and?
remedy for cow troubles."
Analysis of a sample of the article by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed that it consisted essentially of a mixture of salt, soda, Epsom?
salt, iron oxid, fenugreek, ginger, nux vomica, and gentian.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that tfye?
above-quoted statements were false and fraudulent in that the said article?
contained no ingredient or combination of ingredients capable of producing?
the therapeutic effects claimed.
On February 12, 1923, 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.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.