uct "Cuforhedake Brane Fude" or "Cuforhedake Brain Food" when it is not a cure is to mislabel it.2 A label on a product for curing headache which states that it does not contain any "dangerous drugs," when it in fact contains acetanilid, is falsely branded.3 A statement that red powder contains two grains of acetanilid when it contains three is a mislabeling of the article. A failure to state that the liquid contains acetanilid and alcohol is to mislabel it; and so to represent that the product contained pepsin when it does not, and that pepsin and soda combined with acetanilid. and caffein will ordinarily cure a headache, because it will not. An alleged headache cure was labeled as follows: "Telephone Headache Tablets. Each envelope contains six Tablets. Guaranteed Absolutely Harmless. This is a reliable remedy for the cure of sick and nervous headache, toothache, neuralgia, rheumatic pains and any nervous irritations, giving almost immediate relief. They contain no opium, morphia, or any injurious medicine. Pleasant to take and per fectly harmless when used as directed. "None genuine unless signed Charles W. Horn, Pharmacist, Proprietor of the 'Telephone' Remedies, Slatington, Pa. Guaranteed under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906. Containing two hundred grains acetanilide per ounce, No. 1579. A very effectual remedy for headache or any nervous and rheumatic pain. Try it. By druggists and dealers everywhere or by mail on receipt of price." These statements were false, to wit: "Each envelope contains six tablets. Guaranteed absolutely harmless." "They contain no opium, or morphia, or any injurious medicine. Pleasant to take and perfectly harmless when used as directed." Enclosed with each retail package was a circular which contained these statements: "They absolutely contain no opium, morphia, or any injurious drugs, but are in every respect the latest result of science." "This remedy is a combination of the best known medicines from the vegetable kingdom, each having a specific action of its own, and in their combined state, act as a most powerful specific against 2 N. J. 25. 8 N. J. 449; N. J. 418; N. J. 573. 4 N. J. 346; N. J. 569. 5 N. J. 208; N. J. 191; N. J. 260; N. J. 559. 6 N. J. 465; N. J. 225; N. J. 258. the disease of the nerve centers." It was held mislabeled." To say that each powder contains one-half ounce of acetanilid when it contains more is to mislabel it. A drug product was labeled "Burwell's Instantaneous Headache Cachets. These Cachets are composed of Caffein and Acetanilid and are warranted free from Antipyrine, Morphine, Chloral or Opium. They are speedy, certain and safe remedy for headaches of all origin, whether Sick, Bilious, Nervous or Hysterical." The product consisted of caffein, acetanilid and sodium bicarbonate. They were not a speedy, safe and certain remedy for headaches of all origin; it produced no therapeutic value for headaches of any origin; and it was not safe because it contained a large amount of acetanilid, a dangerous drug. It was adjudged misbranded." § 448. Hydrogen Peroxide. To fail to state on the label of a bottle containing hydrogen peroxide that it contains acetanilid is to violate the statute.1 § 449. Injurious Drug. A statement on a label that the bottle on which it is placed "contains no injurious drugs and is perfectly harmless" is false and misleading when it contains acetanilid and caffein and is injurious to one's health who takes it.1 § 449a. Jamaica Ginger. A product was labeled "Jamaica Ginger." It was a highly dilute solution of ginger extract not over half the standard of that article. It was adjudged misbranded.1 7 N. J. 392. 8 N. J. 428. 9 N. J. 820. So far as these several decisions are based upon that part of the label with reference to the curative power of the drug they are erron eous, under a decision of the Supreme Court. See § 406. 1 N. J. 575; N. J. 216. 1 N. J. 708; N. J. 631; N. J. 624. These decisions are probably not affected by the recent Supreme Court decision. See § 406. 1 N. J. 936. § 449b. Kamola. A label on a drug stated that it was ground kamola. An analysis showed it to be a mixture of kamola and sand, the latter ingredient forming 40 percent of the product. To a charge of misbranding the defendant pleaded guilty.2 § 450. Koca Nola-Kola-Ade-Kos-Kola. A product was labeled "High Grade Koca Nola, Soda Water Flavor Guaranteed under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906." It contained cocaine. It was held that the product was mislabeled. The court said that it made no difference that the quantity was small; "any cocaine" in the liquid was sufficient to render the act of labeling one of mislabeling.1 Kola-Ade containing cocaine and coca leaf alkaloids must be so labeled; and so Kos-Kola containing cocaine.3 § 451. Kurakoff. On a carton was the following: "Kurakoff, the Lung Healer, catarrh and asthma cure. A wonderful combination of Russian white pine, Mexican wild sage honey, with new gums and oils heretofore unused. A positive cure for consumption, bronchitis, hemorrhages, asthma, catarrh, hay fever, sore and weak lungs, coughs, colds and sore throat. A speedy and never failing remedy for croup, whooping cough and diphtheria. The druggist is authorized to refund the price where it does not relieve or cure when properly tried. For sale by all druggists. Price fifty cents. X X X C. A. Lewis, New York, Kurakoff. Trade Mark Registered;" (on bottle) "X X X The great pine remedy Kurakoff. Lung healer, catarrh, Hay Fever and asthma cure X X X. A specific for kidney diseases. Absolutely harmless. I hereby guarantee that the medicine manufactured, sold and distributed by me under the name and trademark 'Kurakoff' is not 2 N. J. 1011. 1 N. J. 202. See also N. J. 909 for Kola Cordial. 2 N. J. 310. 3 N. J. 296. . adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906. C. A. Lewis, Somerville, Mass.;" (on circular packed with product) Is positive cure for that dreaded scourge diphtheria, and is a sure preventative. Never a case in families where it is used. Can be given with perfect safety to infants and weakest patients. Samples from this shipment were procured and analyzed by the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture, and the product was found to be a greenish-brown liquid containing 59.9 percent nonvolatile material, including invert sugar 41.5 percent, salicylic acid, gummy material, and a product resembling extract of squill. The balance of the product consisted largely of water with small amounts of turpentine and oil of sassafras. As the claims of this product as a curative were false, it was adjudged misbranded.1 § 452. Laudanum. A laudanum was labeled "Highest Quality and Strictly Pure," which was false. The label stated it contained 45.5 grains of opium to the ounce, when it contained only 37.7 grains. It was held misbranded.1 If the label fails to state the quantity or proportion of alcohol, opium or morphine contained in it, it is mislabeled. So if it does not come up to the standard of the United States Pharmacopoeia.3 § 453. Lopez Specific Special Compound. A product was labeled as follows: "Lopez Specific Special Compound $5.00. Guaranteed by Lopez Remedy Company, under Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906-Serial No. 7344, and the Kansas Food and Drug Act, February 14, 1907, Serial No. 100; Arkansas Food and Drug Act, May 28, 1907, 1 N. J. 750. This decision can not now be sustained so far as it is based upon the false representations of the curative powers of the drug. See 406. 1 N. J. 226. Serial No. 31. Lopez Remedy Co., Wichita, Kansas, U. S. A., Hot Springs, Arkansas, U. S. A." Accompanying said bottle and packed therewith, was a pamphlet descriptive thereof. Samples from this shipment were procured and analyzed by the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture, with the following results: Alcohol 27.40 percent, potassium iodide 3.85 percent, total mineral substances 6.02 percent, total extractive material 9.40 percent; giving reaction for a laxative drug such as podophyllum with odor, suggesting the presence of sarsaparilla, stillingia, eucalyptus, and taste indicative of the presence of a bitter tonic, like gentian. As the findings of the analyst and report made indicated that the product was misbranded within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, the Secretary of Agriculture certified the matter to the United States District Attorney who filed in information against the Lopez Remedy Company alleging substantially that the product so shipped was misbranded within the meaning of the Act in that: (1) The use of the word "Specific" upon the said label was unwarranted and misleading inasmuch as the article was not a specific; (2) the alcohol contained in said article was not declared in the manner prescribed by Regulation 17, Department of Agriculture; (3) the following statements which appear in the above mentioned pamphlet entitled "Plain Talk on Blood, Skin and Private Diseases;" "Lopez has no equal;" "Nothing but Lopez can and does work such wonders;" were false and misleading inasmuch as the remedy was not calculated to work wonders and was not an infallible cure for the diseases therein enumerated; (4) the statement in said pamphlet, to wit, "Lopez will effect a positive and permanent cure for rheumatism, in all of its many forms," was false and misleading for the reason that the said remedy would not effect a permanent, positive cure for rheumatism in all of its forms; (5) the statement in said pamphlet, "The only guaranteed cure for . . . . Consumption, Scrofula, Syphilis, Rheumatism, Stomach, Liver and Bladder affections, Gleet, Sexual Weakness, and Failing Memory," was false, for the |