People v. Price
| Citation | 257 Ill. 587,101 N.E. 196 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. PRICE. |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1913 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; Freeman K. Blake, Judge.
W. T. Price was convicted of violating the Pure Food Law, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Trafford N. Jayne, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Tolman & Redfield, of Chicago (Henry P. Chandler, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., and John. E. W. Wayman, State's Atty., of Chicago (Noleman & Smith, of Centralia, and Charles F. McKinley, of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error was fined $50 and costs in the municipal court of the city of Chicago for violating what is commonly known as the pure food statute, enacted in 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 543), and has sued out a writ of error to review the judgment. The title of the act is: ‘An act to prevent fraud in the sale of dairy products, their imitation or substitutes, to prohibit and prevent the manufacture and sale of unhealthful, adulterated or misbranded food, liquors or dairy products, to provide for the appointment of a state food commissioner and his assistants, to define their powers and duties and to repeal all acts relating to the production, manufacture and sale of dairy and food products and liquors in conflict herewith.’ The charge against plaintiff in error was that he ‘did unlawfully manufacture for sale, offer for sale and sell a certain preservative compound known as Mrs. Price's Canning Compound, intended as a preservative of food, which was then and there unwholesome and injurious in that it contained boric acid, an unwholesome and injurious substance, in violation of the act aforesaid.’ To the charge, he pleaded not guilty, and waived trial by jury. On the trial certain facts were agreed to by stipulation between the parties, as follows: ‘That the defendant, W. T. Price, on or about August 30, 1911, at Chicago, in said county, offered for sale, and sold, two packages of a preservative known as Mrs. Price's Canning Compound; that said canning compound contained boric acid; that the label on said packages bears the following statement: ‘It is not claimed for this compound that it contains anything of food value, but it is an antiseptic preparation, and among its many uses may be employed to prevent canned fruits and vegetables from souring and spoiling’-that said preservative was not offered for sale or sold in any food product, but was offered for sale and sold, separate and apart, as a preservative; that the defendant was accorded a hearing before the state food commission, pursuant to the provisions of the food law.'
The state also introduced in evidence the envelope or covering used for inclosing the compound referred to in the stipulation. Printed on one side of the envelope was the following:
Mrs. Price's Canning Compound, Manufactured by The Price Compound Company, Minneapolis, Minn.
May be used in canning all kinds of fruit, and is especially valuable for corn, beans, peas, asparagus, tomatoes, etc.
May also be used in making catsup, sweet pickles, or anything that is liable to ferment. It saves money, time, labor, worry, and insures the best results. See book of directions for instruction in using the compound and how to do all kinds of canning.
Guaranteed by the Price Compound Co. under the Food and Drug
Act of June 30th, 1906.
Book with free samples sent to any address on application.
The contents of this package is sufficient for four quarts.
For compound or information call on our agent or address
Mrs. W. T. Price, 1605 Penn avenue, North Minneapolis Minn.
The other side of said envelope contains the following words and figures:
Notice to Purchasers.
It is not claimed for this compound that it contains anything of food value, but it is an antiseptic preparation, and among its many uses may be employed to prevent canned fruits and vegetables from souring and spoiling.
No other evidence was offered by the state. Plaintiff in error, at the conclusion of the state's case, entered a motion that he be found not guilty, assigning as reasons therefor that the proof was not sufficient to authorize a conviction, and also that the act is unconstitutional. The court denied the motion, and plaintiff in error then offered to make certain proof. It was stipulated that a witness in court, if sworn, would testify that the Price Canning Compound is an article of commerce which has been sold under that distinct name for a period of years, with the ingredients and in the proportions contained in the sample taken by the food department, which is the subject of this suit; that it has acquired a wide reputation over a large number of states in the Union as a distinctive article used for canning by the housewife; that it is not sold by the defendant in any food nor as a food, nor is it sold to manufacturers of food or canners of food for sale; that boric acid is a constituent part of the compound, and has been such during all the time that the compound has been sold; that in the sample taken by the food department, and, in fact, in any other goods sold by this defendant, there is no added ingredient of any kind whatever, whether it be injurious, deleterious, or otherwise. He also offered to prove that boric acid is not injurious to the health or human system, and that the Price Canning Compound is not adulterated or mislabeled in any way. Objections by the state to this proof were sustained. Plaintiff in error also offered to prove, and it was agreed that a witness, if placed on the stand, would testify, that the compound is an article of commerce manufactured in Minnesota, and sold in the original package in Illinois.
The court denied propositions of law tendered by plaintiff in error raising the material questions involved in this litigation, which are thus stated in plaintiff in error's brief: The position of the state is that, by the Pure Food act, boric acid was declared unwholesome and injurious, and this obviated the necessity for proof of that fact. Section 8 provides that food shall be deemed to be adulterated ‘if it contains any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient which may render such article injurious to health; * * * and formaldehyde, hydrofluoric acid, boric acid, salicylic acid and all compounds and derivatives thereof are hereby declared unwholesome and injurious.’ Section 22 forbids anyone to ‘manufacture for sale, advertise, offer or expose for sale, or sell, any * * * unwholesome or injurious preservative or any mixture or compound thereof intended as a preservative of any food: Provided, however, that this section shall not apply to pure salt added to butter and cheese.’
[1][2][3] We will first notice the objection of plaintiff in error that section 8 deals only with foods; that the declaration in that section that boric acid is injurious and unwholesome is limited to foods containing that substance as an added ingredient, and has no application to a preservative which is not, and does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Old Tavern Farm, Inc.
... ... the welfare of the public, the exercise of the police power by the legislature is well established as not in conflict with the constitution." People v. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 43 N. E. 541, 543, 31 L. R. A. 689, 52 Am. St. Rep. 707 ... The Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to ... Not price fixing, but the requirement of bond to pay the price, is now the test ... The proprietary plan of dealing in and with dairy ... ...
-
State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Carolene Products
... ... People v. Marx, 99 N.Y. 377; State v. Layton, 160 Mo. 491. (a) The statutes as applied to respondent's products are not sustainable as necessary to protect ... 390, 43 Sup. Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 1042; People v. Weiner, 271 Ill. 74, 110 N.E. 870; People v. Biesecker, 169 N.Y. 53; People v. Price, 257 Ill. 587; People v. Marx, 99 N.Y. 377; Carolene Products Co. v. Thomson, 276 Mich. 172, 267 N.W. 608; Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402, ... ...
-
State ex rel. McKittrick v. Carolene Products Co.
... ... foods when fairly sold, without fraud, upon their merits, ... merely because such foods may be used as a substitute for ... other foods. People v. Marx, 99 N.Y. 377; State ... v. Layton, 160 Mo. 491. (a) The statutes as applied to ... respondent's products are not sustainable as ... 390, 43 ... S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042; People v. Weiner, 271 Ill ... 74, 110 N.E. 870; People v. Biesecker, 169 N.Y. 53; ... People v. Price, 257 Ill. 587; People v ... Marx, 99 N.Y. 377; Carolene Products Co. v ... Thomson, 276 Mich. 172, 267 N.W. 608; Weaver v ... Palmer ... ...
-
Belfield v. Coop
... ... Co. v. Anderson, 146 Mich. 328, 109 N.W. 429, 8 L.R.A.,N.S., 306, and criminal cases, Commonwealth v. Clark, 123 Pa.Super. 277, 187 A. 237; People v. Hayes, 21 Cal.App.2d 320, 71 P.2d 321; State v. Raasch, 201 Minn. 158, 275 N.W. 620; State v. Perkins, 355 Mo. 851, 198 S.W.2d 704, 168 A.L.R ... People v. Price, 257 Ill. 587, 101 N.E. 196; 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 311. 'If in a statute there is neither ambiguity nor room for construction, the intention of ... ...