Commonwealth v. New England Maple Syrup Co.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1914 |
| Citation | 217 Mass. 432,105 N.E. 453 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. NEW ENGLAND MAPLE SYRUP CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John J. Higgins, Dist. Atty., and Nelson P. Brown, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Boston, for the Commonwealth.
Henry W. Beal and Leo J. Dunn, both of Boston, for defendant.
The charge against the defendant is that it sold to one Dosteller 'a certain article of food, to wit syrup, said syrup so sold as aforesaid being then and there adulterated at the time of said sale within the meaning of' R. L. c. 75, § 18. There is no question that a syrup was sold, and the only question is whether it was adulterated within the meaning of either the fourth or the eighth clause ( St. 1910, c. 528) of that section.
1. As to the fourth clause. This clause declares food to be adulterated 'if it is in imitation of or is sold under the name of another article.' It is strongly argued by the commonwealth that this Golden Tree syrup, consisting of a compound of maple sugar, granulated sugar and water, was 'in imitation of' maple sugar syrup. But we think that the agreed statement of facts upon which the case was submitted to the jury fails to support beyond a reasonable doubt this contention. We see nothing in the labels upon the body of the bottle in which the syrup was placed, or upon the cork, calculated to show any attempt at such imitation; and the mere facts that the consistency of the two syrups was the same, and that the color of the compound was the same as one of the various colors of pure maple syrup are not enough.
Nor was the compound 'sold under the name of another article.' Dosteller did not order pure maple sugar syrup but 'Golden Tree syrup.' He received what he ordered. No deception seems to have been practiced upon him. Plainly the article ordered and delivered was the blend known as 'Golden Tree syrup,' and it does not appear to have been known by any other name. So far as the prosecution rests upon this clause it fails.
2. As to the eighth clause ( St. 1910, c. 528). This clause as originally enacted declared an article of food to be adulterated 'if it contains any added antiseptic or preservative substance, except common table salt, saltpetre cane sugar, alcohol, vinegar, spices, or, in smoked food, the natural products of the smoking process; but the provisions of this definition shall not apply to any such article if it bears a label on which the presence and the percentage of every such antiseptic or preservative substance are clearly indicated.' R. L. c. 75, § 18, cl. 8. This clause was amended by St. 1910, c. 528,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Carolene Products
...904, affmd. 37 Fed. (2d) 1014; People v. Henning Co., 260 Ill. 554, 103 N.E. 530, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1206; Commonwealth v. New England Maple Syrup Co., 217 Mass. 432, 105 N.E. 453. (b) Applicable rules of statutory construction. Natl. Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301......
-
State ex rel. McKittrick v. Carolene Products Co.
... ... v. Emery, 178 Wis. 147, 189 ... N.W. 564; Powell v. Commonwealth of Penn., 127 U.S ... 678, 8 S.Ct. 882, 32 L.Ed. 253; Tiedeman, ... 530, ... 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1206; Commonwealth v. New England ... Maple Syrup Co., 217 Mass. 432, 105 N.E. 453. (b) ... Applicable ... ...
-
State v. Hershman
... ... 554, 103 N.E. 530, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) ... 1206; Commonwealth v. New England Maple Syrup Co., ... 217 Mass. 432, 105 N.E. 453. (b) ... ...
-
Aeration Processes, Inc. v. Commissioner of Public Health
...statutory standard and which may be imitated if labeled as the statute requires. The plaintiffs rely on Commonwealth v. New England Maple Syrup Co., 217 Mass. 432, 434, 105 N.E. 453. The issue there was under R.L. c. 75, § 18, cl. 4, which declared food adulterated if "in imitation of' * * ......