STANDARDS.

Laws providing for board of health to make minimum standard is not unconstitutional and the law took effect because of the power that made the law and the taking effect was only delayed till the standard was made. Isenhour vs. State, 157 Ind., 517; City of Gloverville vs. Enos, 72 N. Y. St., 398.

DAIRY PRODUCTS.

The adulteration of milk may be prohibited although it be sold openly, fairly and with notice and although the adulteration is harmless. State vs. Schlenker, 112 Iowa, 642.

Term milk includes cream and addition of boracic acid is adulteration. Com. vs. Gordon, 159 Mass., 8.

. If percentage of water in milk is fixed at not more than 87 per cent and milk solids not less than 13 per cent if it contains a greater per cent of water must be sold as skim milk, and if not seller is liable. Com. vs. Tobias, 149 Mass., 129.

In prosecution for selling adulterated milk it is immaterial how quantity of milk solids have been reduced below standard. Com. vs. Bowers, 140 Mass., 483.

To convict for selling adulterated milk it is sufficient to show that glass of adulterated milk was sold. Com. vs. Veith, 155 Mass., 442; Com. vs. Warren, 160 Mass., 533.

Act prohibiting sale of adulterated milk is constitutional. State vs. Schlenker, 112 Iowa, 642.

Milk or cream taken from man from wagon at early hour in morning; held, defendant was offering cream for sale under the evidence submitted. People vs. Hills, 72 N. Y., 340.

Affidavit charging defendant in possession of adulterated milk although it does not charge that he adulterated it is good. Isenhour vs. State, 157 Ind., 517.

Proof of criminal intent is unnecessary.

Com. vs. White, 11 Allen, (Mass.), 264; Com. vs. Smith, 103 Mass., 444; Com. VS. Warren, 160 Mass., 553; Com. . Veith, 155 Mass., 442.

The keeping or offering for sale or having in possession with intent to sell of adulterated milk is violation of law. People vs. Justice, 7 Hun. (N. Y.), 214; Polinsky vs. People, 73 N. Y., 65.

A law which requires all milk to come up to a certain standard is a valid exercise of police powers. Deems vs. Mayor, 80 Md., 164; State vs. Crescent Creamery Co., 83 Minn., 284; Kansas City vs. Cook, 30 Mo. App., 660; State vs. Campbell, 64 N. H., 402; State vs. Smith, 14 R. I., 100; 51 Am. Rep., 344; Baker vs. Luther, 20 R. I., 472.

It is not necessary to show that a person selling milk knows that is below the legal standard. The legislature has the power to pass a law, the violation of which may be punished without regard to motive or knowledge on the part of violator. Vandergrift vs. Niehla, (N. J., 1901), 49 A., 16; State vs. Schlenker, 12 Ia., 642; People vs. Schaeffer, 41 Hun. (N. Y.), 23; Same vs. Cipperly, 101 N. Y., 634; Same vs. Kibler, 106 N. Y., 321; Same vs. Eddy, 12 N. Y. Supp., 628.

Regulation of the sale of dairy products by law is constitutional. Holtgrieve vs. State, 7 Ohio N. P., 389.

Cans or vessels from which skimmed milk is sold must be labeled as provided by law. Com. vs. Hugh, 1st Pa. Dist. Rep., 51.

Milk delivered to a purchaser of a meal as a part thereof is a sale as though bought and paid for apart from the meal. Com. vs. Warren, 160 Mass., 533. It is not unconstitutional to declare by law that a certain class of people shall not sell impure milk within the city or village even though the law is not intended to apply to other persons who sell milk in the country. State vs. Broadbelt, 89 Md., 565.

Vendors of milk may be required to register. City of Gloversville vs. Enos, 72 N. Y. St., 398.

An honorably discharged soldier must register before receiving license. City of Gloversville vs. Enos, Supra.

It is not necessary to show the particular manner in which analysis was made. Vandergrift vs. Niehla, (N. J., 1901), 49 A., 16.

The state may fix an arbitrary standard below which milk can not be sold and evidence that the milk was below that standard when given by the cow is not a defense. State vs. Campbell, 64 N. H., 402.

Evidence that defendant's cows were properly fed is not admissible to discredit chemist's analysis. State vs. Campbell, Supra.

Evidence that defendant on a wagon had a license and had milk can in one of which was adulterated milk is sufficient evidence that he was in possession of adulterated milk with intent to sell the same. Com. vs. Rowell, 146 Mass., 128.

Evidence that defendant was on street in a wagon at an early hour with several cans from one of which inspector took a sample which can was not marked "Skimmed Milk" and the milk on analysis was below standard is sufficient evidence to show an intent to sell the milk in the wagon. Com. vs. Smith, 142 Mass., 169.

When the law requires the record of an analysis to be made and preserved as evidence and a certificate of such analysis sworn to by the analyst is made admissible in evidence against a defendant an averment that the milk was not of the standard quality, is sufficient. Com. vs. Lapham, 156 Mass., 480.

The evidence of the person who analyzed the milk and who is shown to have sufficient skill to analyze milk is admissible. Com. vs. Holt, 146 Mass., 38. The state may authorize the analysis of milk and evidence thereof may be given in even though the milk has been destroyed. State vs. Campbell, 64 N. H., 402.

Evidence of a test of milk even though made nearly a year after the sale of the milk, is admissible. Stearns vs. Ingraham, 1 Thomp. & Co. (N. Y.), 218.

CHEESE.

Evidence that cheese made from milk, which was lumpy and bloody, is bloated and puffed and inferior in quality and that some cheese manufactured from milk furnished by the defendant in common with others was so bloated and puffed is sufficient to show that the milk furnished by the defendant was lumpy or bloody. Bilgrien vs. Dowe, 91 Wis., 393.

States requiring cheese to be branded with the name and address of the manufacturer and the kind of cheese it is, is valid and the lettering must be the required size. 6th Pa. Dist. Rep., 689.

If cheese is made out of the state the dealer may brand with his name and address. 20 Pa., Co. Ct., 61.

OLEOMARGARINE.

An Act which prevents the manufacture or sale of imitation butter or cheese does not violate the rights of a patentee or manufacturer. 39 Ohio St., 236; Palmer vs. State, 48 Am. Rep., 429; State vs. Capital City Dairy Co., 62 Ohio St., 350; 22 S. Ct.. 120: Com. vs. Diefendacher, 14 Penn. Super. Ct., 264.

Oleomargarine must be marked as provided by law. Haines vs. The People, 7 Colo. App., 467; State vs. Dunbar, 13 Ore., 591.

Statutes which prohibit the manufacture of substitutes or imitations of butter are valid exercise of the police power and are constitutional. Cook vs. State, 110 Ala., 40: Powell vs. Com., 114 Pa. St., 268; Com. vs. Shirley, 152 Pa. St., 170; Com. vs. McCann, 14 Pa. St. Sup. Ct., 221; Pierce vs. State, 63 Ind., 592. It is unlawful to manufacture or sell products made from vegetable oils or

animal fats or oils which are designed to take the place of butter or cheese. It is not necessary to prove the act beyond a reasonable doubt; a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. People vs. Briggs, 114 N. Y., 56; State vs. Rogers, 95 Me., 94: Palmer vs. State, 39 Ohio, 236.

A state may exclude any compound manufactured in another state and colored in imitation of yellow butter. State vs. Rogers, 95 Me., 94; Fox vs. State, 89 Md., 381; Com. vs. Paul, 148 Pa. St., 559; Hancock vs. State, 89 Md., 725.

Statutes which prohibit the manufacture or sale of any article in imitation of butter or cheese are within the police power o. the state. Powell vs. Pa., 127 U. S., 678; Walker vs. Pa., 127 U. S., 699; In re. Brosnahan, 18 Fed. Rep., 62; Com. vs. Huntly, 156 Mass., 236; Butler vs. Chambers, 36 Minn., 69; State vs. Bockstruck, 136 Mo., 335; State vs. Addington, 77 Mo., 110; State vs. Addington, 12 Mo. App., 217.

In selling oleomargarine for butter the intention to deceive is not an essential element of the offense; the sale is prohibited without regard to intention. State vs. Addington, 77 Mo., 110; State vs. Ryan, 70 N. H., 196; State vs. Newton, 50 N. J. L., 549; Com. vs. Gray, 150 Mass., 327; People vs. Hellman, 68 N. Y. S., 66; Same vs. Same, 15 N. Y. C. R., 394.

Furnishing oleomargarine as a part of a meal ordered by a customer is sufficient to convict a restaurant keeper of selling oleomargarine. Com. vs. Miller, 13 Pa. State, 118; Com. Alleghany Co. vs. Hendley, 7 Pa. Super. Ct., 365; State vs. Ball, 70 N. H., 40; Com. vs. Stewart, 159 Mass., 113; Hancock vs. State, 89 Md., 724.

Person selling article for butter which is one-fourth part foreign matter guilty of violating Act prohibiting sale of substance not butter as butter. People vs. Mahaney, 7 Hun. (N. Y.), 26.

An offer to sell may be inferred from exposing oleomargarine not labeled as such upon the shelves or counter with other pure butter. State vs. Dunbar, 13 Or., 591.

Statute requiring both sides of wagon selling oleomargarine to be placarded with uncondensed gothic letters not less than three inches in length, "Licensed to sell Oleomargarine," is not complied with by putting placard on inside of covered wagon. Com. vs. Crane, 157 Mass., 218.

Sample illegally taken may be used as evidence in prosecution for exposing oleomargarine in imitation of butter. Com. vs. Byrnes, 158 Mass., 172.

Oleomargarine should be marked and packed as required by law and requiring it to be packed and branded as the Commissioner of Agriculture may direct is not a delegation to that officer of the power to declare what acts shall be criminal because the law directs that the same shall be packed and branded and prohibits the sale of those which are not, leaving the kind to be determined by that officer. U. S. vs. Daugherty, 101 F., 439; Ex-parte Hollock, 165 U. S., 526.

An indictment need not allege that oleomargarine was fraudulently sold. Fox vs. State, 94 Md., 143.

A justice of the peace has jurisdiction over the offense of coloring oleomargarine. State vs. Ruedy, 59 Ohio St., 24.

Butter may be colored yellow, but oleomargarine may not be colored yellow in imitation of butter. Com. vs. Vandyke, 13 Penn. Sup. Ct., 484; McCann vs. Com., 198 Penn., 509; In re. Schictlin, 99 Fed., 272.

Law requiring oleomargarine to be colored pink is constitutional. Armour Packing Co. vs. Snyder, 84 Fed. Rept., 136 (Minn.).

National legislation on oleomargarine does not restrict the power of the state. A state may exclude from its markets any compound, manufactured in another state, artificially colored or adulterated so as to cause it to look like an article of food in general use and thereby cheat the general public. Plumley vs. Massachusetts, 155 U. S., 461.