Domingo v. French Bottling Works, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1932 |
| Citation | 180 N.E. 537,259 N.Y. 4 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. DOMINGO v. FRENCH BOTTLING WORKS, Inc. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
In a proceeding by the People, on the complaint of Emil Domingo, against the French Botting Works, Incorporated, defendant, by a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, was convicted of violation of section 139(b) of the Sanitary Code of the Board of Health of New York City. From order of the Appellate Division (234 App. Div. 680, 252 N. Y. S. 950), affirming the judgment of conviction, defendant appeals by permission of a judge of the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
John C. Judge, of Brooklyn, for appellant.
Arthur J. W. Hilly, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (J. Joseph Lilly and Henry J. Shields, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
This appeal calls into question the validity of the provision of the Sanitary Code (section 139(b) in force in the city of New York relative to labeling bottled non-alcoholic carbonated beverages, which requires the dealer to indicate the presence of ‘saccharin or other synthetic sweetening agent’ on the bottle or container or cap.
The Greater New York Charter (Laws 1901, c. 466, amended by Laws 1904, c. 628, § 3) authorizes the board of health to embrace in the Sanitary Code ‘all matters and subjects to which, and so far as, the power and authority of said department of health extends, not limiting their application to the subject of health only.’ Section 1172. Reasonable regulations to prevent adulteration and misbranding of food products are within the legitimate exercise of the powers thus granted as being provisions for the security of life and health in the city of New York. People have a right to know what they are buying. United States v. Antikamnia Chemical Co., 231 U. S. 654, 655, 34 S. Ct. 222, 58 L. Ed. 419; see Rules and Regulations for the Enforcement of the Federal Food & Drugs Act, 1922, Regulation 21, ‘Substitution.’
The appellant contends that the regulation is unreasonable as having no relation to the security of life and health. It contends that as there is no law requiring the use of sugar as a sweetening substance, a rule requiring soft drinks containing saccharin to be so labeled discriminates against a harmless sweetening substance when lawfully used. For proof that saccharin is a harmless sweetening substance, counsel cites cases in the lower courts to that effect. People v. Excelsior Bottling Works, Inc., 184 App. Div. 45, 171 N. Y. S. 733;People, on Complaint of Holborrow v. Jacobowitz, 224 App. Div. 111, 229 N. Y. S. 369. Those cases are not controlling here. Moreover, they have to do with the prohibition of the use of saccharin while we are considering merely a labeling law.
In determining what saccharin is, the judge has a discretionary right to resort to standard dictionaries and encyclopedias to satisfy himself ‘that he is justified in making the desired ruling for despensing with evidence.’ 5 Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.) 574.
In the Encyclopedia Americana (volume 24, p. 87), we find: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taxes, Hawaiian Pineapple Co., Ltd., In re
...semi-technical subject in respect to which the dictionary definitions do not appear to be precise or inclusive. See People v. French Bottling Works, 259 N.Y. 4, 180 N.E. 537; In re Siemen's Estate, 346 Pa. 610, 613, 31 A.2d 280, 282, 153 A.L.R. 483; Palmer v. Sun Oil Co., D.C. Ohio, 78 F.Su......
-
Wells v. State
...53. Where a matter can be established by judicial notice, it need not be inquired into by evidentiary trial. People v. French Bottling Works, 259 N.Y. 4, 7, 180 N.E. 537. Judicial notice is appropriate on pretrial motions that seek the dismissal of Plaintiff's case. Pfleuger v. Pfleuger, 30......
-
People v. Longo
...juror, will assure as true for the purpose of the case before him, certain facts without requiring proof thereof. People v. French Bottling Works 259 N.Y. 4, 7, 180 N.E. 537. The fundamental justification for this legal phenomenon is that the trier of the facts possesses in common with the ......
-
City of Buffalo v. Beck
...or juror, will assume as true for the purpose of the case before him, certain facts without requiring proof thereof (People v. French Bottling Works, 259 N.Y. 4, 7). The fundamental justification for this legal phenomenon is that the trier of the facts possesses in common with the public kn......