City of Seattle v. Erickson
| Decision Date | 15 November 1909 |
| Citation | 104 P. 1128,55 Wash. 675 |
| Parties | CITY OF SEATTLE v. ERICKSON. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Wilson R. Gay Judge.
A. Z Erickson was convicted of violating a city ordinance, and he appeals. Affirmed.
John E Humphries and George B. Cole, for appellant.
Ellis De Bruler, for respondent.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of having in his possession, custody, and control, with intent to sell for human food, milk to which water had been added, contrary to an ordinance of the city of Seattle. From the judgment of conviction, this appeal is prosecuted, and two errors are assigned as grounds for reversal: First, insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and judgment; and, second, error in law in limiting counsel for appellant to 15 minutes in their argument to the jury.
It is conceded that the appellant is engaged in the business of selling and delivering milk for human food in the city of Seattle, and that on the date alleged in the complaint two samples were taken from a can of milk in the possession of one of his drivers. There were but two controverted questions of fact at the trial: First, was the milk in the can from which the samples were taken intended for sale for human food? And, second, was the milk watered? The testimony on these issues was very brief. The driver testified that he had completed his morning delivery at the time the samples were taken, that the samples were taken from a can of sour milk which he was taking home from a restaurant, that this was the only can in his wagon containing milk at the time, and that the milk was not intended for sale. The city inspector who took the samples testified, on the other hand, that the driver had 30 or 40 cans in his wagon, that he examined 5 or 6 of these, each of which contained milk, and other testimony on the part of the city showed that the milk was not sour. In view of this testimony, the business in which the appellant was engaged, the conduct of the driver at the time the samples were taken, and all the surrounding circumstances, we think the jury were warranted in saying that the milk was intended for sale for human food.
The appellant and his employés testified that no water was added to the milk while in their possession, so that the question of whether the milk was watered depended upon the testimony of the two chemists who analyzed the samples above referred to, the one for the appellant, the other for the respondent. These two witnesses differed in their conclusions only. Each found substantially the same percentage of butter fact and other solids in the milk, and each testified that the milk was considerably below normal in respect to these solids. The witness for the respondent testified that the milk was watered, while the witness for the appellant testified that it was only skimmed. A bare statement of this testimony shows that the question at issue was for the jury.
We think, also, that a mere statement of the issues and testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
45 593 Herring v. New York 8212 6587
...155, 24 S.E.2d 175 (1943); Word v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. 743 (1831); State v. Mayo, 42 Wash. 540, 85 P. 251 (1906); Seattle v. Erickson, 55 Wash. 675, 104 P. 1128 (1909). One treatise states the general rule as follows: 'The presentation of his defense by argument to the jury, by himself or ......
-
State v. Frost
...422 U.S. 853, 862, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 45 L.Ed.2d 593 (1975); Perez-Cervantes, 141 Wash.2d at 474-75, 6 P.3d 1160; City of Seattle v. Erickson, 55 Wash. 675, 677, 104 P. 1128 (1909). As explained by this "The presiding judge must be and is given great latitude in controlling the duration and lim......
-
State v. Conley, No. 37970-8-II (Wash. App. 6/8/2010)
...95 S. Ct. 2550, 45 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1975); State v. Perez-Cervantes, 141 Wn.2d 468, 474-75, 6 P.3d 1160 (2000); City of Seattle v. Erickson, 55 Wash. 675, 677, 104 P. 1128 (1909), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1145 (2008)). 17. A defendant has no right to introduce evidence that a third party commit......
-
May v. State
... ... 440, 171 S.W ... 149; State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518, 36 Am. Rep. 89; ... City of Seattle v. Erickson, 55 Wash. 675, 104 P ... 1128, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1027; Hendrix v. United ... ...