30989. Adulteration and misbranding of chloral hydrate compound, aquarium
(eye lotion), Haglogen, solution of sodium cacodylate, and bichloride 
tablets. V. S. v. Clifford V. Haver, Louis A. Merillat, Mrs. Myrtle 
Mary Haver, and William Earl Cahill, trading as a business trust under 
the name of the Haver-Glover Laboratories. Plea of guilty on behalf 
of the company; fine $260. Plea of nolo contendere by Louis A. Meril- 
lat; fine $20. (F. & D. No. 42656. Sample Nos. 15393-D, 15395-D, 15397-D, 
15399-D, 15703-D, 15719-D.)
This case involved the following products: Chloral hydrate compound which 
contained smaller proportions of chloral hydrate and potassium than those de- 
clared; aquarium (eye lotion) which contained smaller proportions of sulfate 
of zinc, boracic acid, and procaine than those declared; Haglogen the labeling 
of which bore false and misleading representations regarding its effectiveness 
as an antiseptic and disinfectant, and false and fraudulent curative and thera-
peutic claims; sodium cacodylate which contained a smaller proportion of 
sodium dimethylarsenate than that declared; and bichloride tablets which con- 
tained smaller proportions of corrosive sublimate and ammonium chloride than 
those declared.
On June 5, 1939, the United States attorney for the Western District of 
Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
district court an information against Clifford V. Haver, Louis A. Merillat, Mrs. 
Myrtle Mary Haver, and William Earl Cahill, trading as the Haver-Glover 
Laboratories, a business trust existing under the laws of the State of Missouri 
and doing business at Kansas City, Mo., alleging shipment within the period 
from on or about August 20, 1937, to on or about February 10, 1938, from the 
State of Missouri into the State of Nebraska of quantities of the above-named 
drugs, which were adulterated and misbranded in violation of the Food and 
Drugs Act.
Bacteriological examination of Haglogen showed that it was not an anti- 
septic and disinfectant when used as directed.
The chloral hydrate compound was alleged to be adulterated in that its 
strength fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, 
in that each fluid ounce was represented to contain 120 grains of chloral hydrate 
and 120 grains of potassium bromide; whereas each fluid ounce contained 
not more than 108.3 grains of chloral hydrate, and not more than 107.5 grains 
of potassium bromide. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statement. 
"Each Fluid ounce contains Chloral hydrate 120 gr. Potassium bromide 120 gr.," 
borne on the bottle label, was false and misleading since the article contained 
less chloral hydrate and potassium bromide than declared.
The Collyrium (eye lotion) was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength 
fell below the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, in that it 
was represented to contain 3 percent of zinc sulfate, 10 percent of boracic acid, and 
3 percent of procaine; whereas it contained not more than 2.52 percent of zinc 
sulfate, not more than 6.0 percent of boracic acid, and not more than 0.38 
percent of procaine. It was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, 
"Contains: Sulph. of zinc. * * * 3% Boracic Acid * * * 10% Pro- 
caine 1%," borne on the carton and bottle label, were false and misleading 
since it contained less sulfate of zinc, less boracic acid, and less procaine than 
declared.
The Haglogen was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength fell below 
the professed standard and quality under which it was sold, in that it was 
represented to be an antiseptic and disinfectant when used as directed} 
whereas it was not an antiseptic and disinfectant when used as directed. It 
was alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Haglogen is * * * 
antiseptic, disinfectant * * » Dilute one-half ounce to a pint for washing, 
Irrigating or douching wounds or body cavities. The dose of this dilution 
Internally is one to two ounces repeated ad libitum," borne on the bottle label, 
were false and misleading since the article was not an antiseptic and dis- 
infectant when used as directed. It was alleged to be misbranded further in 
that certain statements in the labeling regarding its curative and therapeutic 
effects falsely and fraudulently represented that it was effective as an anti- 
septic and disinfectant and effective in the treatment of septic, putrid, catarrhal, 
and gangrenous processes in wounds and mucous membranes; and effective 
as a wash, irrigant, or douche for wounds or body cavities.
The sodium cacodylate solution (2 shipments) was alleged to be adulterated 
In that its strength fell below the professed standard and quality under which 
it was sold, in that the product in one of the shipments was represented to 
contain in each 10 cubic centimeters 45 grains of sodium dimethylarsenate and 
the product in the other shipment was represented to contain 90 grains of 
sodium dimethylarsenate in each 10 cubic centimeters; whereas the former 
contained not more than 37.4 grains and the latter contained not more than 
82.8 grains of sodium dimethylarsenate in each 10 cubic centimeters. It was 
alleged to be misbranded in that the statements, "Each 10 c. c. contains: 45 grs. 
Sodium Dimethylarsenate" and "Each 10 c. c. contains: 90 grs. Sodium Di- 
methylarsenate," borne on the bottle label, were false and misleading, since the 
article in each case contained less sodium dimethylarsenate than the amount 
declared.
The bichloride tablets were alleged to be adulterated in that their strength 
fell below the professed standard and quality under which they were sold in 
that each of the tablets was represented to contain 7.3 grains of corrosive
sublimate and 7.7 grains of ammonium chloride; whereas they contained not 
more than 6.0 grains of corrosive sublimate, and not more than 5.2 grains of 
ammonium chloride. Misbranding was alleged in that the statement, "Each 
Tablet contains: Corrosive Sublimate 7.3 gr. Ammonium Chloride 7.7 gr.," 
borne on the bottle labels, was false and misleading, since the article contained 
less corrosive sublimate and ammonium chloride than the amounts declared.
On June 12, 1939, a plea of guilty having been entered*on behalf of the 
Haver-Glover Laboratories, the court imposed a fine of $260 against the said 
company. On January 22, 1940, Louis A. Merillat entered a plea of nolo 
contendere and was fined $20.
GBOTEB B. HTT.T., Acting Secretary of Agriculture.