Hahaha! Carl,
According to Bucklen, who produced Dr King's New Life Pills, they were good at addressing stomach problems, but eventually they were billed as the anecdote for nearly everything. ;)
Best,
David L Cook
> On Feb 12, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Carl Steen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I wonder if the "Dr Kings New Life Pills" bottle I found last month could be the antidote to sweet old "Aunt Hannah's Death Drops?"
>
>
>
>
> Carl Steen
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Skiles <[log in to unmask]>
> To: HISTARCH <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 12:55 pm
> Subject: Re: Help diagnosing "Aunt Hannah's" glass bottle
>
>
> American Druggist and Pharmaceutical Record 38 [April 22, 1901]:239
>
> "They do such things as this in the tranquil borough at the further end
> of the Brooklyn Bridge: 'Do you handle Aunt Hannah's Liquid Death Drops?
> If Not, Why Not? Trade prices on application to Aunt Hannah's Nephews,
> Jenkins Bros., 250-2 Pulaski street, Brooklyn, N. Y.' Are the death
> drops for killing rats, bedbugs or book agents? asks the National
> Advertiser. Aunt Hannah's lively nephews [that is to say, her living
> successors] omit to say."
>
> USDA - Insecticide and Fungicide Board - Service and Regulatory
> Announcements No. 31 - Issued November 10, 1920, pp709-710:
>
> [Case] 562. Misbranding of "Aunt Hannah's Liquid Death Drops," U.S. v.
> H. Trauerts & Co. Plea of Guilty. Fine, $10. (I.&F. No. 687, Dom. No.
> 13604).
>
> On July 8, 1910, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
> New York, acting upon a report by the secretary of Agriculture, filed in
> the District Court of the United States for the said district an
> information against H. Trauberts & Co., a corporation, Brooklyn, N. Y.,
> alleging the sale and delivery, on June 6, 1917, by the said defendant
> to McKesson & Robbins, New York, N. Y., of a quantity of an article,
> contained in 720 cans, labeled "Aunt Hannah's Liquid Death Drops," which
> was a misbranded insecticide within the meaning of the Insecticide Act
> of 1910. It was further alleged in the information that on June 12,
> 1917, the said McKesson & Robbins shipped 36 of the said 720 cans of the
> article, so sold and delivered to it by the said H. Trauerts & Co., from
> the State of New York; that the cans containing the article and the
> contents and labels thereof were not altered in any manner whatsoever
> after the delivery by H. Trauerts & Co. to McKesson & Robbins, and when
> so shipped by McKesson & Robbins from the State of New York into the
> State of New Jersey were intact and in the identical condition as when
> received by McKesson & Robbins from H. Trauerts & Co.; that before the
> time of said sale and delivery of the article by H. Trauerts & Co. to
> McKesson & Robbins, H. Trauerts & Co. affixed to the labels on the cans
> of the article a guaranty, to wit: "Guaranteed by Aunt Hannah's Chemical
> Co., Brooklyn, N. Y. Under the Insecticide Act of 1910, Serial No. 203;"
> and that by reason of the said sale and delivery of the article by H.
> Trauerts & Co. to McKesson & Robbins, and the said guaranty, H. Trauerts
> & Co. was amenable to the prosecutions, fines, and other penalties which
> would, but for the said guaranty, attach in due course to McKesson &
> Robbins.
> Misbranding was alleged in the information (1) in that the packages
> and labels bore statements regarding the article which were false and
> misleading, and (2) in that the article was labeled and branded so as to
> deceive and mislead the purchaser: In this, that statements, borne on
> the labels affixed to the cans containing the article, represented that
> the application of the article in the method and manner as directed by
> the said statements would exterminate bed bugs, roaches, fleas, moths,
> ants, and vermin of all kinds in and about households and human
> habitations, whereas in fact and in truth, the use and application of
> the article in the method and manner as directed by the said statements
> would not exterminate bed bugs, roaches, fleas, moths, ants, or vermin
> of all kinds in and about households and human habitations; and in this,
> that statements borne on the labels affixed to the cans containing the
> article, represented that the use and application of the article on and
> to carpets, bedding, and upholstery in the method and manner as directed
> by the said statements would destroy all germs, would destroy all
> insects, and would destroy all deposits of eggs of all insects in such
> carpets, bedding, and upholstery .... would be effective as a
> disinfectant for sick rooms and toilet rooms ....
> On October 6, 1919, the defendant withdrew a plea of not guilty
> previously entered and entered a plea of guilty to the information, and
> the court imposed a fine of $10."
>
> Bob Skiles
>
>> On 2/12/2014 10:25 AM, geoff carver wrote:
>> This is particularly interesting:
>> WE CONTINUE TO STAND PROUDLY IN SUPPORT OF OUR BRAVE MILITARY FORCES AND
>> THEIR FAMILIES WHO ARE SO VALIANTLY DEFENDING OUR NATION AND THE WORLD FROM
>> UNGODLY TERRORISTS. THESE WONDERFUL MEN AND WOMEN NEED TO KNOW THAT THE VAST
>> MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE BEHIND THEM ALL THE WAY AND THAT THEIR CAUSE IS A
>> NOBLE ONE. OUR DAILY PRAYERS ARE WITH YOU....AND ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO
>> HAVE LOST THEIR PRECIOUS LOVED ONES WHILE SERVING OUR COUNTRY SO HONORABLY.
>> MAY GOD BLESS YOU MIGHTILY AND COMFORT YOU IN THE CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE THAT
>> THEIR SACRIFICE IS NOT IN VAIN
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>>
>> Googling I found this website. They depict an aqua peppersauce bottle from
>> a privy in Louisiana, ca. 1890.
>> http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/aunt-hannahs-sauce-bottle-1890-dug-119
>> 676020
>
>
|