Margolin v. State, No. 23664.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtDavidson
Citation205 S.W.2d 775
Decision Date29 October 1947
Docket NumberNo. 23664.
PartiesMARGOLIN v. STATE.
205 S.W.2d 775
MARGOLIN
v.
STATE.
No. 23664.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
October 29, 1947.
Rehearing Denied November 26, 1947.

Commissioners' Decision.

Appeal from County Court at Law, No. 2, Harris County; Allie L. Peyton, Judge.

Page 776

A. A. Morgolin was convicted of violating the pure food law by manufacturing and offering for sale a bottle of adulterated soda water, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Jack K. Ayer and James V. Allred, both of Houston, for appellant.

Price Daniel, Atty. Gen., Burnell Waldrep, Asst. Atty. Gen., A. C. Winborn, Crim. Dist. Atty., and E. T. Branch, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., both of Houston, and Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.


This is a conviction for violating the Pure Food Law; the punishment, a fine of $200.

The accusation, as laid in the Information, was to the effect that on September 4, 1946, appellant manufactured for sale and offered for sale an article of food, viz., a bottle of soda water which was "then and there adulterated in this, to-wit:

"A substance, to-wit: saccharin, was then and there mixed with said article of food so as to lower and injuriously affect the quality and strength of said article of food, and a valuable constituent of said article, to-wit: sugar, was then and there wholly and in part abstracted therefrom, and said article was below the standard of quality and purity represented to the consumer thereof * * *."

By Article 706, P.C., it is made unlawful for one to manufacture for sale, offer for sale, or sell any article of food which is adulterated. Bottled soda water is there defined as an article of food.

By Article 707(c), P.C., an article of food is adulterated:

"(1) if any substance has been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength;

"(2) if any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article;

"(3) if any valuable constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted, or if the product be below that standard of quality, quantity, strength or purity represented to the purchaser or consumer.

"(4) if it be mixed, colored or powdered, coated or stained in a manner whereby damage or inferiority is concealed;

"(5) if it contains any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient which may render such article injurious to health, provided, that when in the preparation of food products for shipment they are preserved by any external application applied in such manner that the preservative is necessarily removed mechanically, or by maceration in water or otherwise, and directions for the removal of said preservative shall be printed on the covering of the package, the provisions of this Act shall be construed as applying only when said products are ready for consumption;

"(6) if it consists in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed or putrid animal or vegetable substance, or any portion of an animal or vegetable unfit for food, whether manufactured or not, or if it is the product of a diseased animal, or one that has died otherwise than by slaughter."

The Information charged a violation of Sections (1), (2), and (3) of that Article.

The Legislature has not prohibited, by name, the use of saccharin in the manufacture of bottled soda water. If it be unlawful, then, to use saccharin in such, it is so by reason of the fact that such constitutes an adulterated food, as that term is defined by law.

The facts show that appellant is a manufacturer —that is, a bottler—of soda water and, as such, did manufacture for sale and offer for sale a bottle of cream soda water which contained saccharin. The facts further show that saccharin is a drug; it is not a food, and has no food value. It may be taken in sufficient quantities to be injurious to health, especially that of a child. The amount of saccharin in the bottle of soda water upon which this prosecution is based was slight and not of sufficient amount, of and within itself, to be injurious to health.

The purpose for which the saccharin was here used was as a sweetening agent to displace, and it did displace, three per cent. of the sugar content. Sugar is the principal food ingredient of soda water.

Page 777

In addition to the foregoing facts, the State introduced in evidence the following order of the State Board of Health promulgated by the State Health Officer:

"`Beverages
"`A. Carbonated Beverages, Soda, Soda Water

"`The term "carbonated beverage," "soda," or "soda water," used in this definition shall include all beverages prepared from sugar sirup or sugar and dextrose sirup, soda water flavor, and potable carbonated water, with or without harmless color, and with or without acidulation by the use of harmless organic acide, or pure phosphoric acid.'"

"`Saccharin In Carbonated Beverages, Soda, Soda Water, Soft Drinks, And Food.

"`The use of saccharin as an ingredient in carbonated beverages, soda, soda water, soft drinks, or other food is hereby prohibited. Any carbonated beverage, soda, soda water, soft drink, or other food containing saccharin will be considered as adulterated under the Texas Food and Drug Law.'"

"Since saccharin comes within the definition of a drug and has no food value, and,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • State v. Rhine, No. PD-0912-08.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • September 23, 2009
    ...standard, may delegate to the administrative tribunal or officer power to prescribe details, Margolin v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 132, 205 S.W.2d 775 (1947); Williams v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 430, 176 S.W.2d 177 (1943), such as to establish rules, regulations or minimum standards reasonably nece......
  • Grunsfeld v. State, Nos. 1037-91
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 28, 1992
    ...its implementation. Page 544 Ex parte Granviel, 561 S.W.2d 503, at 514 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), citing Margolin v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 132, 205 S.W.2d 775 (1947) and Williams v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 430, 176 S.W.2d 177 (1943). That primary standard must be "capable of reasonable application." Id......
  • Ex parte Granviel, No. 56267
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 1, 1978
    ...standard, may delegate to the administrative tribunal or officer power to prescribe details, Margolin v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 132, 205 S.W.2d 775 (1947); Williams v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 430, 176 S.W.2d 177 (1943), such as to establish rules, regulations or minimum standards reasonably nece......
  • State v. Empey, NO. 02-14-00407-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • August 4, 2016
    ...211, 212 (1936).7 See Ex parte Granviel , 561 S.W.2d 503, 514 (Tex.Crim.App.1978) (relying on Margolin v. State , 151 Tex.Crim. 132, 138, 205 S.W.2d 775, 778–79 (1947), and Williams v. State , 146 Tex.Crim. 430, 438–39, 176 S.W.2d 177, 183 (1943) ); see also In re Johnson , 554 S.W.2d 775, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • State v. Rhine, No. PD-0912-08.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • September 23, 2009
    ...standard, may delegate to the administrative tribunal or officer power to prescribe details, Margolin v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 132, 205 S.W.2d 775 (1947); Williams v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 430, 176 S.W.2d 177 (1943), such as to establish rules, regulations or minimum standards reasonably nece......
  • Grunsfeld v. State, Nos. 1037-91
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 28, 1992
    ...its implementation. Page 544 Ex parte Granviel, 561 S.W.2d 503, at 514 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), citing Margolin v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 132, 205 S.W.2d 775 (1947) and Williams v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 430, 176 S.W.2d 177 (1943). That primary standard must be "capable of reasonable application." Id......
  • Ex parte Granviel, No. 56267
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 1, 1978
    ...standard, may delegate to the administrative tribunal or officer power to prescribe details, Margolin v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 132, 205 S.W.2d 775 (1947); Williams v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 430, 176 S.W.2d 177 (1943), such as to establish rules, regulations or minimum standards reasonably nece......
  • State v. Empey, NO. 02-14-00407-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • August 4, 2016
    ...211, 212 (1936).7 See Ex parte Granviel , 561 S.W.2d 503, 514 (Tex.Crim.App.1978) (relying on Margolin v. State , 151 Tex.Crim. 132, 138, 205 S.W.2d 775, 778–79 (1947), and Williams v. State , 146 Tex.Crim. 430, 438–39, 176 S.W.2d 177, 183 (1943) ); see also In re Johnson , 554 S.W.2d 775, ......
  • 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