496
.
.
T H E J O U R N A L OF I N D U S T R I A L A N D ENGINEERING C H E M I S T R Y .
ive name of another article, t o wit, spirits of turpentine, which it was then and there represented t o be by tbe label, though in truth and in fact i t was not spirits of turpentine for the reason t h a t mineral oil had been mixed therewith. On June 29, 1910,the defendant entered a plea of guilty t o the above information, and the court imposed a fine of $IO and costs. This notice is given pursuant to Section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906. W. M. HAYS, Actiing Secretary of Agriculture. WASHINGTON, D. C., July 29, rgro. NOTICE O F JUDGMENT NO. 550, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT. Adulteration and Misbranding of Spirits of Camphor On or about February 9, 1909, the Dow & Snell Company, Incorporated, Toledo, Ohio, shipped from the State of Ohio to the State of Michigan a consignment of drug product labeled “Triumph Brand, Pure Spirits of Camphor, manufactured by the Dow & Snell Company, Toledo.” A sample from this shipment was procured and analyzed by the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture, and a s i t appeared from the findings of the analyst and report thereon that the product was adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, the Secretary of Agriculture afforded the Dow & Snell Company, Incorporated, a n d the dealer from whom the sample was purchased, opportunities for hearings. As it appeared after hearings held t h a t the said shipment was made i n violation of the act, the Secretary of Agriculture reported the facts to the Attorney-General, with a statement of the evidence on which to base a prosecution. I n due course a criminal information was filed against the said Dow & Snell Company, Incorporated, in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio, charging the above shipment and alleging that the product was adulterated in that i t was sold under a name “Spirits of Camphor,” recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia, but that the article did not comply with. the standard prescribed by that authority and did not have the standard of strength, quality, or purity stated upon the package in which it was contained, and further t h a t the product was misbranded in that the package containing the same was so labeled as to cause the purchaser t o believe t h a t the article was spirits of camphor when as a matter of fact it was not spirits of camphor a s recognized by the United States Pharmacopoeia, and also that the label in no manner declared the presence of alcohol in the product, when a s a matter of fact a quantity of alcohol was found therein. On June 22, 1910,the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and the court imposed a fine of $ 2 5 and costs. This notice is given pursuant to Section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906. W. M. HAYS, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. WASHINGTON, D. C., August 5, 1910. NOTICE O F JUDGMENT NO. 572, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT. Adulteration and Misbranding of Gum Tragacanth. O n or about September 3, 1909,The National Aniline and Chemical Company, a corporation of the Borough of Brooklyn, New York City, shipped from the State of New York to the State of New Jersey a quantity of a drug ptoduct labeled “Powdered Gum Tragacanth.” Samples from this shipment were procured and analyzed by the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture, and a s the findings of the analyst and report thereon indicated that the product was adulterated and misbranded within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906,the Secretary of Agriculture afforded said National Aniline and
Nov., 1910
Chemical Company and the dealer from whom the samples were procured opportunities for hearings, As i t appeared after hearings held t h a t said shipment was made i n violation of the act, the Secretary of Agriculture reported the facts to the AttorneyGeneral, with a statement of the evidence upon which to base a prosecution. I n due course a criminal i7formation was filed i n the Circuit Court of the United States for f i e Eastern District of New York against the said National Aniline and Chemical Company, charging the above shipment and alleging the product so shipped was adulterated, in t h a t i t differed from the standard of strength, quality, and purity of gum tragacanth as determined by the test laid down in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary official at the time of investigation, and further alleging t h a t said product was misbranded, i n t h a t it was sold and shipped under and by the name of “Powdered Gum Tragacanth’’ when in truth and in fact it was not “Powdered Gum Tragacanth” but a different article, to wit, “Powdered Indian Gum.” On June I, 1910,the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court imposed a fine of $ 2 5 . This notice is given pursuant to Section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906.
WASHINGTON, D. C., August
20,
W. M. HAYS, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 1910.
NOTICE O F JUDGMENT NO. 583, FOOD AND DRUGS ACT. Misbranding of Asafetida. On or about January 2 1 , rgog, Albert Bruen, Wnliam P. Ritchey, and Charles C. Bruen, doing business under the first name of Bruen, Ritchey & Co., New York City, shipped from the State of New York to the State of New Jersey a quantity of a drug product contained i n a package labeled: Gum Asafetida (Foetida ferula) I pound Brukn, Ritchey & Co., New York. Guaranteed under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906. Serial No. 1063. Samples from this shipment were procured and analyzed by the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture, and a s the findings of the analyst and report made indicated t h a t the product was misbranded within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, the said Bruen, Ritchey & Co., and the party from whom the samples were procured were ,afforded opportunities for hearings. As i t appeared after hearings held that t h e shipment was made in violation of the act, the Secretary of Agriculture reported the facts to the Attorney-General, with a statement of the evidence upon which to base a prosecution. I n due course a criminal information was filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York against the said Bruen, Ritchey & Co., charging the above shipment and alleging that the product was misbranded, in t h a t the label above set forth was false and misleading because i t represented the product t o be ‘asafetida” when, as a matter of fact, i t contained much foreign material. On April 5, 1910,the defendants entered a plea of guilty to the above information and the Court imposed a fine of $50. This notice is given pursuant t o Section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906. W. M. HAYS, Acting Secretary of Agriculture. WASHINGTON, D. C., Augustrz7, 1910.
.
CORRECTION. An error was made in reporting the carbonates in the Columbia River water which appeared in the June number of THIS JOURNAL. The CO, should read I 1.0parts per million instead of C. E. BRADLEY. 1.1 as reported.
