Peeters v. State

Decision Date31 May 1913
Citation154 Wis. 111,142 N.W. 181
PartiesPEETERS v. STATE.
CourtWisconsin 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: “All sales of blackberries, blueberries, currants, gooseberries, raspberries, cherries, strawberries, and similar berries in quantities of less than one bushel shall be by the quart, pint, or half-pint, dry measure, and all berry boxes or baskets sold, used, or offered for sale within the state shall be of the interior capacity of not less than one quart, pint, or half-pint, dry measure. Any person who, by himself or by his servant or agent or as the servant or agent of another, shall violate any of the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than ten days nor more than three months.” 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
4 cases
  • ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 95-C-0671-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Western District of Wisconsin
    • January 4, 1996
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • June 20, 1996
    ...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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 24, 1913
    ......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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 24, 1913
    ...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 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT