People v. West

• Decision Date: 28 June 1887
• Citation: 12 N.E. 610,106 N.Y. 293
• Parties: PEOPLE v. WEST.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

106 N.Y. 293

12 N.E. 610

PEOPLE

v.WEST.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 28, 1887.

Appeal from judgment of the supreme court, Fifth department, reversing the judgment of the court of sessions of Erie county allowing defendant's demurrer to indictment, and remitting the case to said court of sessions, with directions to overrule the demurrer, and require the defendant to plead to indictment.

The indictment, which was for a violation of section 3 of chapter 202 of the Laws of 1884, or of section 3 of chapter 183 of the Laws of 1885 (both sections being substantially similar,) is as follows: ‘The grand jury of the county of Erie by this indictment accuse Hanford West of the crime of watering milk, and bringing the same to a manufactory for the purpose of making the same into cheese, committed as follows: That the said Hanford West, at the town of Sardinia, in the county aforesaid, on the eighth day of July, in the year of our Lord 1886, did worngfully, unlawfully, and knowingly supply and bring, to be manufactured into cheese, to a cheese manufactory, then and there situate, a certain quantity of milk, to-wit, ten gallons, which said milk was then and there dluted with water; the said Hanford West then and there bringing the said milk so diluted to the factory for the purpose of having the same manufactured into cheese; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of the people of the state of New York, and their dignity.’

A. J. Knight, for appellant.

Geo. T. Quinby, for the People.

ANDREWS, J.

The third section of the act (Chapter 183, Laws 1885) entitled ‘An act to prevent deception in the sale of dairy products, and to preserve the public health,’ supplementary to and in aid of chapter 202 of the Laws of 1884, entitled ‘An act to prevent deceptions in sales of dairy products,’ provides, among other things, that ‘no person or persons shall sell, supply, or bring to be manufactured, to any butter or cheese manufactory, any milk diluted with water, or any unclean, impure, unhealthy, adulterated, or unwholesomemilk,’ etc.; and declares that whoever violates the provisions of the section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The indictment in this case ‘accuses the defendant of the crime of watering milk, and bringing the same to a manufactory for the purpose of making the same into cheese;’ and charges ‘that the said Hanford West, at the town of Sardinia, in the county of Erie, on the eighth day of July, in the year 1886, did wrongfully, unlawfully, and knowingly supply and bring to be manufactured into cheese, to a cheese manufactory then and there situate, a certain quantity of milk, to-wit, ten gallons, which said milk was then and there diluted with water; the said Hanford West then and there bringing the said milk so diluted to the factory for the purpose of having the same manufactured into cheese; contrary to the form of the statute,’ etc.

The defendant demurred to the indictment, and the only question presented is whether the indictment charges a criminal or indictable offense. The indictment follows the language of the statute, and the general rule is well settled that an indictment for a statutory offense, and especially when the offense is a misdemeanor, charging the facts constituting the crime in the words of the statute, and containing averments as to time, place, and person, and other circumstances to identify the particular transaction, is good as a pleading, and justifies putting the defendant on trial. Whart. Crim. Law, § 364; People v. Taylor, 3 Denio, 91.

But this rule presupposes that the statute creating the offense is a valid exercise of legislative power. The validity of the statute in question is assailed on the ground that it converts what is or may be an innocent act into a criminal offense, and that it is a restriction upon that natural liberty possessed of every owner of property to use it in any lawful way. The power of the legislature to define and declare public offenses is unlimited, except in so far as it is restrained by constitutional provisions and guaranties. A legislative act is presumptively valid, and whoever questions its validity must be able to point to some limitation or restriction, or to some guaranty in the constitution of the state or the United States which it violates, before its operation can be stayed, or the court be called upon to pronounce it void. Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 N. Y. 509. It is not a good objection to a statute prohibiting a particular act, and making its commission a...