Peeters v. State
Decision Date | 31 May 1913 |
Citation | 154 Wis. 111,142 N.W. 181 |
Parties | PEETERS v. STATE. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Brown County; N. J. Monahan, Judge.
Henry Peeters was convicted of a violation of the Weights and Measures Law, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Prosecution for a violation of subdivision 10 of section 1668, Stats. 1911, which provides: Said subdivision was modified by subdivision 14 by a proviso that “until the first day of March, 1913, nothing in this section shall prevent the sale of any of the fruits or vegetables named or designated in this section, if the containing barrel, crate, berry box, or basket in which the same are sold is plainly and indelibly stamped or branded on the outside thereof in characters in color different from the container, at least one inch high in the case of barrel or crate, and at least one-half inch high in the case of berry box or basket, so as to show the correct interior capacity thereof by fractional part of the standard barrel or crate or of the standard quart or pint, dry measure, as the case may be, if sold for such capacity.” Defendant was convicted and brings the case to this court by a writ of error.
Kittell & Burke, of Green Bay, and Herbert J. Smith, of De Pere, for plaintiff in error.
Walter C. Owen, Atty. Gen., J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and M. E. Davis, Dist. Atty., of Green Bay, for the State.
VINJE, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the municipal court for Brown county of having sold what purported to be one quart of strawberries to one Odeal La Court in a box the interior capacity of which was less than one quart and more than one pint, dry measure, and not stamped on the outside thereof at the time of sale so as to indicate the true capacity of the box, contrary to the provisions of subdivisions 10 and 14, section 1668, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 95-C-0671-C.
...Select Phone™ in a reasonable manner at the moment they purchased the product by exchanging money for the program. Peeters v. State, 154 Wis. 111, 142 N.W. 181 (1913) (sales contract results when customer pays purchase price and departs with item). Paying for a software program is a reasona......
-
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg
...the shelf is an "offer," which the customer "accepts" by paying the asking price and leaving the store with the goods. Peeters v. State, 154 Wis. 111, 142 N.W. 181 (1913). In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, a contract includes only the terms on which the parties have agreed. One cannot agree to hi......
-
Lounsberry v. Kelly
......Appellant's brief was filed on January 12, 1913. On January 17, 1912, this court handed down its decision in State v. Doran, 28 S. D. 486, 134 N. W. 53, in which it was held that everything necessary to an understanding of the error complained of should be printed ......
-
Lounsberry v. Kelly
...Bank v. Custer County, 18 S.D. 274, 100 N.W. 424. Failure to make a finding upon an issue not appealed from is not reversible error. [142 N.W. 181.] Wilson v. Wilson, 26 S.D. 182, 128 N.W. 120. Appellant's counsel in their brief say the only questions sought to be reviewed are questions of ......