Commonwealth v. E. E. Wilson Company.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1922
• Citation: 241 Mass. 406
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. E. E. WILSON COMPANY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

241 Mass. 406

COMMONWEALTH v. E. E. WILSON COMPANY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 19, 1922

April 12, 1922.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., BRALEY, CROSBY CARROLL, & JENNEY, JJ.

Board of Health Municipal: health commissioner of Boston. Boston. Food. Constitutional Law, Police regulation.

An order or regulation, "that in all establishments where eggs are handled for food or mechanical purposes all `rot' and `spot' eggs shall be immediately placed in a water-tight metal container, provided with cover, containing a solution of carbolic acid of a strength of at least five per cent, or a denaturant of an equivalent strength, therein denatured by mixing them thoroughly," which was issued in February,

1918, by the health commissioner of the city of Boston, in charge of the health department of the city, was within the authority given by R.L.c.

75, Section 65 (see now G.L.c. 111, Section 122); and this authority was not curtailed by St. 1914, c. 627, which contained no express nor implied repeal of R.L.c. 75, Section 65.

An order of a health department promulgated under G.L.c. 111, Section 122 is not invalid by reason of the fact that it requires precautions to avoid possible danger to the public health as well as measures to restrict conditions actually harmful.

Evidence, offered by a corporation being tried upon a complaint for violation of the regulation above described, that it was compelled to break the eggs before selling them for manufacturing purposes and that the regulation destroyed a well known commercial product and deprived the defendant of its property without due process of law, that other dealers, instead of breaking their own eggs, sold them in the shell "to breakers to be carried away to breaking establishments" and that the eggs described in the regulation in their condition of rottenness could be sold to tanners for use in softening certain kinds of leather, properly was excluded, since the opening and retention of such eggs, undenatured, for any purposes could be found detrimental to the public welfare and the regulation was a reasonable one going no further than limiting the use of property in the interest of the health of the community.

The regulation above described was not in conflict with any provision of the State or of the Federal Constitution.

COMPLAINT, received and sworn to in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston on July 17, 1918, charging that the defendant on June 24, 1918 at its establishment, a certain shop wherein eggs were handled by it for food purposes, did "handle certain `rot' and `spot' eggs, so called, and did not then and there immediately upon the handling of said `rot' and `spot' eggs as aforesaid, place the same in a water-tight metal container provided with cover and containing a solution of carbolic acid of strength at least five per cent., nor a denaturant of an equivalent strength, nor therein denatured by mixing said `rot' and `spot' eggs thoroughly in said container, against the peace of said Commonwealth, the form of the statute and the rule and regulation of the health commissioner of said city in such case made and provided."

On appeal to the Superior Court, the complaint was heard before Sanderson, J. The regulation of the health commission was as follows:

"In health department, Boston, February 21, 1918. Regulation Concerning the Denaturing of `Rot' and `Spot' Eggs: It was ordered by the Health Commissioner that the regulation of September 6th, 1917, concerning the denaturing of `rot' and `spot' eggs be amended by striking out the words `in a manner satisfactory to the Health Commissioner or his agents,' so as to read as follows: `It is hereby ordered by the Health Commissioner that in all establishments where eggs are handled for food or mechanical purposes all "rot" and "spot" eggs shall be immediately placed in a water-tight metal container, provided with cover, containing a solution of carbolic acid of a strength of at least 5 per cent., or a denaturant of an equivalent strength, and therein denatured by mixing them thoroughly. All said containers so used shall be plainly and conspicuously marked: "EGGS FOR MECHANICAL PURPOSES ONLY; NOT FOR FOOD," in letters of uncondensed gothic type, not less than one inch in height.'"

The defendant made the following offers of proof: "1. The defendant offers evidence to prove that `rot' and `spot' eggs are obtained in lighting or candling eggs before eggs are offered for sale for food purposes; that the majority of places candling eggs and selling same for food purposes deal in other food products but do not `break' `rots' and `spots' for mechanical purposes, but sell such `rots' and `spots' in the shell to breakers to be carried away to breaking establishments.

"2. The defendant offers evidence to prove that compliance with the regulation would result in a condition or conditions so noxious that it would be impracticable to conduct the business of selling eggs for food or other products for food in the same store or place of business.

"3. The defendant offers evidence to prove that `rot' and `spot' eggs contain egg oil; that such oil has great commercial value to tanners for use in softening certain kinds of leather and performs one function in the manufacture of leather which for such purpose there is no known substitute; that compliance with this regulation would destroy the value of such eggs for this or any other commercial use.

"4. The defendant offers evidence to prove that by the use of a certain denaturant on the egg in the shell, `rot' and `spot' eggs can be commercially destroyed in the shell without noxious odors or destroying them for commercial purposes other than food."

The evidence offered was excluded, subject to exceptions by the defendant. Material evidence is described in the opinion. At the close of the evidence, the defendant asked for the following rulings:

"1. That upon the facts as proved by the government there is no evidence upon which the defendant can be found guilty.

"2. That upon all the evidence the court direct a verdict of not guilty. "3. That if the regulation is made upon the authority of R.L.c. 75, Section 65, said regulation is invalid and void in...