11155.?Misbranding; of Eckman's alterative.    U. S. v. 1971 Dozen I-arge Bot?
tles, et al., of Ecfcman's Alterative.     Consent decrees of condem??
nation   and   forfeiture.    Product   released   under   bond.     (P.   &   D.
Nos. 16701, 16702, 16703, 16704, 16730.    I. S. Nos. 8026-v, 8102-v.    S. Nos.?
W-1177, W-1185.)
On Augu&t 3 and 9, 1922, respectively, the United States attorney for the?
Northern District of California, acting upon reports by the Secretary of Agri??
culture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district?
libels for the seizure and condemnation of 240| dozen large bottles and 158f?
dozen small bottles of Eckman's alterative, remaining in the original un??
broken packages, in part at San Francisco, Calif., and in part at Sacramento,?
Calif., alleging that the article had been shipped by the Burrows-Little-White?
Co., Philadelphia, Pa., in part November 23, 1921, and in part April 12, 1922,?
and transported from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of California,?
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 essentially of 3.3 per cent of calcium?
chlorid, 2.3 per cent of plant extracts, and 94.4 per cent of water, flavored?
with clove oil.
Misbranding of the article was alleged in substance in the libels for the?
reason that the following statements regarding the curative and therapeutic?
effect of the said article, (carton and bottle, both sizes) "Eckman's Altera??
tive For use in the following Throat and Lung Affections Bronchial Asthma,?
Catarrhal Bronchitis and Pulmonary Troubles, Stubborn Coughs and Colds,"?
were false and fraudulent since the said article contained no ingredient or?
combination of ingredients capable of producing the effects claimed.
On September 23 and October 14, 1922, respectively, the Burrows-Little-White?
Co., Philadelphia, Pa., having entered an appearance as claimant for the?
property and having consented to the entry of decrees, judgments of condemna??
tion and forfeiture were entered, and it was ordered by the court that the?
product be released to the said claimant upon payment of the costs of the?
proceedings and the execution of good and sufficient bonds, in conformity with?
section 10 of the act, conditioned in part that the product be made to conform?
with the provisions of the said act under the direction and to the satisfaction?
of this department.
C. W. PUGSLEY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
88	
BUREAU OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 154,