Cook v. State

Decision Date28 May 1896
Citation20 So. 360,110 Ala. 40
PartiesCOOK v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; John G. Winter, Judge.

Eason T. Cook was convicted of selling oleomargarine in violation of law, and appeals. Affirmed.

On the trial, William Owen testified, for the state, that a few hours before he went before the grand jury as a witness in this case he went to the store of defendant in the city of Montgomery, and asked him to sell him a pound of oleomargarine; that defendant said he had real butter, but would sell him a pound package of the oleomargarine, which was stamped with the word "Oleomargarine"; that the oleomargarine was of the color of yellow butter; and that witness did not know, of his own knowledge, that the article sold to him was oleomargarine, and he could not say whether it was colored by the introduction of coloring matter or other ingredients, which caused it to look like butter. Peter B. Mastin testified to the same facts as to the purchase of the oleomargarine, and he further testified that he had been for many years engaged in the making and selling of butter and that the oleomargarine bought by Owen from defendant was the color of yellow butter. The state offered in evidence the word "Oleomargarine" and its definition, as contained in Webster's International Dictionary, and also other words, as contained in said dictionary, pertaining to the definition of oleomargarine. Upon the introduction of these words, as contained in said dictionary, the defendant objected, on the ground that it was incompetent, that the book was not authority on the subject, and that it failed to state the natural color of oleomargarine. The court overruled this objection, and defendant excepted. The time and the venue were proved as laid in the indictment. This being all the evidence introduced on the trial of the case, the court upon the request of the solicitor, gave to the jury the following written charge: "If you believe the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, you will find the defendant guilty." Defendant excepted.

Sayre &amp Pearson, for appellant.

Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.

COLEMAN J.

The defendant was indicted and convicted for a violation of a statute entitled "An act to prevent deception in the manufacture, and sale of imitation butter." Acts 1894-95, p. 777. There are some clerical errors in the first section of the act as published, which should be corrected. The act, as adopted and enrolled, reads as follows:

"Section 1. Be it enacted by the general assembly of Alabama, that no person by himself, or his agents, or servants shall render or manufacture, sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, or have in his possession with intent to sell or serve to persons, guests, boarders, or inmates; in any hotel, eating house, restaurant, dining car, or boarding house, or public or private hospital, school, or penal institution, any article, product or compound, made wholly, or partly out of any fat, oil, or oleaginous substance, or compound thereof not produced directly, and at the time of manufacture, from unadulterated milk or cream from the same which shall be in imitation of yellow butter produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from the same: Provided, that nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit the manufacture, or sale of oleomargarine in such manner as will advise the consumer of its real character free from coloration or ingredient that causes it to look like butter by having it stamped with its true name."

Several grounds of demurrer were interposed to the first and second counts of the indictment, and to the indictment as a whole which were overruled by the court, which rulings are assigned as error. It is contended that the statute only prohibits the sale or offer to sell "in any hotel, eating house," etc., and this assignment is based upon the punctuation indicated by the semicolon made after the words "or inmates." Punctuation marks may, in proper cases, be regarded as aids in arriving at the correct...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • The State v. Layton
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1901
    ... ... They are ... intended to furnish to the people a simple, cheap, efficient, ... and wholesome leavening agent in the cooking of food, as a ... substitute for yeast, which is a very slow and more expensive ... leavening agent, and one which requires considerable ... intelligence in the cook to use successfully. All baking ... powders furnish this leavening agent in the form of carbon ... dioxide (carbonic acid gas), which is given off from the ... baking powder in preparing and cooking food. This gas being ... liberated in the dough, forms bubbles which take permanent ... form in ... ...
  • State v. Hammond Packing Company
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • August 14, 1908
    ... ... of yellow oleomargarine, and the legislature having ... determined that question, it is not for the courts to set ... such determination aside. It is a legislative and not a ... judicial function. Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S ... 678; Com. v. Huntley, 156 Mass. 236; Cook" v ... State, 110 Ala. 40; Palmer v. State, 39 Oh. St ... 236; State v. Capital City, 62 Oh. St. 350; ... State v. Bockstruck, 136 Mo. 335; Capital City ... Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U.S. 238; State v. Schlenker, 112 ... Iowa 642 ...           ... OPINION ...       \xC2" ... ...
  • Douglas v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • October 8, 1963
    ...1961, Vol. 134:1493), we cannot accord it authority superior to that of the Second Edition. See Adler v. State, 55 Ala. 16; Cook v. State, 110 Ala. 40, 20 So. 360.5 McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819. See Busch & Harwood, Confessions, 22 Ala.Lawyer 272.6 Jacks......
  • Palmer v. State, 5 Div. 262
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 18, 1975
    ...to 'distort or defeat the intention of the legislature.' The Alabama cases range from Danzey v. State, 68 Ala. 296; Cook v. State, 110 Ala. 40, 20 So. 360; Ex parte Garrett, 262 Ala. 25, 76 So.2d 681, through Earnest v. State, 40 Ala.App. 344, 113 So.2d 517. They seem to run the gamut from ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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