City of St. Louis v. Wortman
Decision Date | 06 June 1908 |
Citation | 213 Mo. 131,112 S.W. 520 |
Parties | CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. WORTMAN. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Acts 1907, p. 239, § 4, cl. 5, entitled "An act to prohibit the manufacture and sale of foods, * * * and prescribing penalties for violation thereof," provides that food shall be deemed to be adulterated if it contains any added substance which is poisonous or injurious to health. Section 17 of Ordinance No. 20,808 of the city of St. Louis prohibits the adding to milk and cream of any foreign substance of whatsoever kind for any purpose. Held, that the ordinance and statute are so inconsistent and repugnant that they cannot both stand, as the ordinance prohibits adding any foreign substance, whether poisonous or injurious to health or not, while the statute prohibits only adding foreign substances which are poisonous or injurious to health, and hence the ordinance is repealed by necessary implication, and a prosecution cannot be maintained thereunder.
9. FOOD—FOOD LAWS—FOREIGN SUBSTANCES —QUANTITY OF.
Under Acts 1907, p. 239, § 4, cl. 5, making it a misdemeanor to place any foreign substance in food of any kind "in any quantity" for any purpose which is poisonous or injurious to health, a prosecution can be maintained for putting formaldehyde in milk, such substance being a poison, even though the quantity placed in the milk was so small that it was not sufficient to cause death or injury to health.
10. SAME.
Acts 1907, p. 242, § 12, providing that no dealer in dairy products shall be prosecuted under the act when he can establish a guaranty as provided in the national food and drug act, approved June 30, 1906 (Act June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 928]), or a guaranty signed by a wholesaler, jobber, or manufacturer either residing within the state or who shall have complied with the requirements for service of process in proceedings under the act, to the effect that the products are not adulterated or misbranded in the original unbroken packages, does not militate against the liability, under the act of dealers in food and dairy products, for placing therein substances which are "poisonous or injurious to health in any quantity for any purpose whatsoever"; the meaning of the section being merely to relieve the dealer of the necessity of analyzing each and every unbroken package sold or consigned to him, and to authorize him to sell from such packages, under the guaranty mentioned therein, provided the wholesaler, jobber, or manufacturer has complied with the provisions of the section.
11. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—ORDINANCES— PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION — EFFECT OF REPEAL OF ORDINANCE.
Where there is no saving clause in a statute repealing a city ordinance, providing that the statute shall not apply to offenses already committed, the repealing statute operates to relieve a defendant being prosecuted under the ordinance for an offense committed before the enactment of the statute, and the omission of the saving clause in the statute cannot be supplied by an ordinance of the city containing such a clause.
In Banc. Error to St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction; Hiram N. Moore, Judge.
Prosecution instituted by the city of St. Louis against Henry Wortman to recover penalty for violating ordinance prescribing standard of purity of dairy products. From a judgment of the St. Louis court of criminal correction quashing the information on appeal from the police court, the city brings error. Affirmed.
It is conceded by the defendant in error that the plaintiff's statement of the case is full and fair, and for economy of time I will adopt that statement as the statement of court, which is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hedrick
...of certain baking powders would not support a statute prohibiting persons from selling such baking powders; and in St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131, the title purported to `create the office of dairy commissioner and define his term, duties and powers' and it was held this would not give v......
-
State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis
...292 Mo. 27; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 541; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544; State v. Great Western Co., 171 Mo. 634; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131; State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. 26; State v. McEniry, 269 Mo. 228; State ex inf. v. Borden, 164 Mo. 221; State ex rel. Greene County v. Gideon......
-
Hammett v. Kansas City
...Comm., 329 Mo. 38, 43 S.W. (2d) 813; State ex rel. City of Breckenridge v. Thompson, 320 Mo. 323, 15 S.W. (2d) 340; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131, 112 S.W. 520; State ex inf. Barrett v. Imhoff, 291 Mo. 603, 238 S.W. 122; Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 284 Mo. 182, 223 S.W. 738; Vice v. ......
-
Sherrill v. Brantley
... ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Charles W ... Rutledge , Judge ... ... Judgment ... 190; State v. Sloan, 258 Mo. 305; State ... v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 554; State v. Wortman, 213 ... Mo. 131; State v. Revelle, 257 Mo. 529; State ex ... rel. v. Gordon, 233 Mo. 383; ... ...