People v. Guiton

• Decision Date: 16 December 1913
• Citation: 103 N.E. 773,210 N.Y. 1
• Parties: PEOPLE v. GUITON et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

210 N.Y. 1

103 N.E. 773

PEOPLE

v.GUITON et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 16, 1913.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Action by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of the State Commissioner of Agriculture, against John J. Guiton and others. From an order of the Appellate Division (152 App. Div. 614,137 N. Y. Supp. 600) reversing a judgment for defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint, defendants appeal. Reversed, and judgment of the trial court affirmed.

See, also, 153 App. Div. 933,138 N. Y. Supp. 1134.

William C. Breed, of New York City, for appellants.

Thomas Carmody, Atty. Gen., for the People.

COLLIN, J.

The action instituted by the commissioner of agriculture of the state, is to recover from the defendants, constituting a mercantile firm, a penalty for a sale of oleomargarine, alleged to have been manufactured in imitation or semblance of natural butter, in contravention of section 38 of the Agricultural Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 1 [Laws 1909, c. 9] §§ 30, 38). The decision of the trial court directed, under the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, which was reversed by the Appellate Division in the order appealed from.

Section 38 is: ‘Manufacture and Sale of Imitation Butter Prohibited. No person by himself, his agents or employés, shall produce or manufacture out of or from any animal fats or animal or vegetable oils not produced from unadulterated milk or cream from the same, the article known as oleomargarine or any article or product in imitation or semblance of natural butter produced from pure, unadulterated milk or cream of the same; or mix, compound with or add to milk, cream or butter any acids or other deleterious substance or any animal fats or animal or vegetable oils not produced from milk or cream, so as to produce any article or substance or any human food in imitation or in semblance of natural butter, nor sell, keep for sale or offer for sale any article, substance or compound, made, manufactured or produced in violation of the provisions of this section, whether such article, substance or compound shall be made or produced in this state or elsewhere. Any person manufacturing, selling, offering or exposing for sale any commodity or substance in imitation or semblance of butter, the product of the dairy, shall be deemed guilty of a violation of this chapter, whether he sells such commodity or substance as butter, oleomargarine or under any other name or designation whatsoever and irrespective of any representations he may make relative to such commodity or substance. * * *’

The oleomargarine was in a package within the maximum size, sealed, wrapped, and labeled in all respects as prescribed by the Agricultural Law. Section 41. It was sold as and for oleomargarine and there was no deception or attempt to deceive in the sale. The ingredients composing it, namely, oleo oil, cottonseed oil, neutral oil, cream, milk, butter, and salt, were the recognized and lawful substantive ingredients of oleomargarine and were mixed or compounded in the usual way. It had a shade of yellow color which was derived solely from these ingredients in a natural condition. No ingredient was for the sole purpose of producing the shade of yellow. Some natural butter has a shade of yellow identical with its shade.

The attorney general, in behalf of the state, asserts that oleomargarine in its natural condition is white; that the identity of color of the oleomargarine and of natural butter proved the manufacture of the oleomargarine ‘in imitation or semblance of natural butter produced from pure, unadulterated milk or cream of the same,’ and therefore in violation of the section, and the sale of it was by the section inhibited and penalized. He argues that the legislative intention was to protect against deception the buyers and consumers of butter by compelling the manufacturers of oleomargarine to put into it only such ingredients, or the usual ingredients having only such a color, as will give it a color other than that of natural butter. The counsel for the appellants asserts that the legislative intention was to interdict the use of an ingredient solely to give the product the color of natural butter, and the designed and conscious selection of the substantive ingredients of such color or colors or in such proportions as will effect an imitation, in the matter of color, of natural butter.

[1] The legislative intention, if expressed and if lawful under the federal and state Constitutions, is the law obligatory upon the courts as well as upon every citizen. Our duty is fulfilled by ascertaining the legislative intention and applying it, if lawful.

Additional proven facts are relevant and useful. Of the established ingredients, as stated, of oleomargarine, oleo oil, which is about one-half of the product, has naturally and in the market a color varying from a cream white through the lighter shades of yellow to a medium yellow; cottonseed oil has varying shades of yellow color and may be white or cream white only through an artificial process; cream has a color ranging from a cream white through the lighter shades of yellow; butter has a color ranging from cream white to the deep and dark shades of yellow. An expert witness defined the color ‘cream white’ as yellow white or white having a tint of yellow. It follows, and the finding of the trial court is, that oleomargarine composed of established ingredients in natural conditions and colors and compounded in the usual and ordinary way has a yellow shade. It has a cream white color when oleo oil, cream, and butter of that color and cottonseed oil artificially brought to that color are used. It is not within the findings of fact of the trial court, or the evidence presented by the record, that the light shade of yellow of the oleomargarine in question was caused by the selection or manipulation of the ingredients in it with the thought, purpose, or intention of giving it the color of butter or any predetermined color. A finding of fact is that the resemblance of the oleomargarine to natural butter ‘was a resemblance in inherent qualities common to both butter and oleomargarine and was not the result of any artificial means or selection employed in the manufacture of said oleomargarine.’

Section 30 of the Agricultural Law contains definitions applicable in this case: ‘The terms ‘butter’ * * * mean the products of the dairy, usually known by those terms, which are manufactured exclusively from pure, unadulterated milk or cream or both, with or without salt * * * or * * * coloring matter. * * *' Oleomargarine is an article ‘in the semblance of butter * * * not the usual product of the dairy, and not made exclusively of pure and unadulterated milk or cream, or any such article or substance into which any oil, lard or fat not produced from milk or cream enters as a component part, or into which melted butter or butter in any condition or state, or any oil thereof has been introduced to take the place of cream.’

[2] There is not needed now, after oleomargarine has for several decades been recognized by the Legislature and the courts as a wholesome, nutritious, and economical substitute for butter, a review of the...