Grosvenor v. Duffy

• Decision Date: 19 September 1899
• Citation: 121 Mich. 220,80 N.W. 19
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: GROSVENOR v. DUFFY, Justice of the Peace.

80 N.W. 19

121 Mich. 220

GROSVENOR v. DUFFY, Justice of the Peace.

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 19, 1899

Certiorari to circuit court, Washtenaw county; Edward D. Kinne, Judge.

Mandamus on relation of Elliott O. Grosvenor, dairy and food commissioner, against John L. Duffy, a justice of the peace. From an order denying the writ, relator brings certiorari. Affirmed.

The relator presented to a justice of the peace a complaint, in writing, charging: That one 'Caspar Rinsey did unlawfully offer and expose for sale, and did unlawfully sell and deliver to said Elliott O. Grosvenor, a large quantity, to wit, one pound, of oleomargarine, which was then and there an article of food intended to be eaten by man, and which was then and there adulterated, within the meaning of Act No. 193 of the Public Acts of Michigan for the year 1895, as amended by Act No. 118 of the Public Acts of Michigan for the year 1897, in this, to wit: That said oleomargarine was then and there an imitation of another article of food, to wit, an imitation of a rich June butter; and the said oleomargarine had been and was then and there colored, whereby inferiority was concealed, and by which means it was made to appear better and of greater value than it reallty was, to wit, in this: That it was thereby made to appear like butter of a grade which was then and there of greater value than the said oleomargarine. That the said oleomargarine was labeled 'Oleomargarine,' and stamped with the seller's name, and that the tub and wrapper which contained the same bore the name and address of the manufacturer, and was distinctly labeled 'Oleomargarine.' Said complainant on his oath aforesaid further says that he called for oleomargarine, and that the said oleomargarine was sold to him as oleomargarine, the same as to an ordinary customer freely and without objection, and that for this reason he did not take the steps required by section 6, Act No. 154 of the Public Acts of Michigan for the year 1897.' The justice refused to entertain the complaint and issue a warrant whereupon the relator applied to the circuit court for Washtenaw county for the writ of mandamus to compel the justice to issue a warrant and proceed to hear the case. The circuit court refused the writ, and the case is brought to this court, by certiorari, for review.

Smedley & Corwin, for relator.

John J. Speed, for respondent.

Jay P. Lee, amicus curiae.

GRANT C.J. (after stating the facts).

The title of the act reads, 'An act to prohibit and prevent adulteration, fraud and deception in the manufacture and sale of articles of food and drink.' Section 3, as amended by Act No. 118, Pub. Acts 1897, so far as it applies to this case, reads: 'An article shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this act: * * * Fourth, if it is an imitation of, or is sold under the name of another article; * * * sixth, if it is colored coated, polished or powdered whereby damage or inferiority is concealed, or if by any means it is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is; seventh, if it contains any added substance or ingredient which is poisonous or injurious to health: provided, that nothing in this act shall prevent the coloring of pure butter; and provided further, that the provisions of this act shall not apply to mixtures or compounds recognized as ordinary articles or ingredients of articles of food, if each and every package sold or offered for sale, bear...