Schmidt v. People
Decision Date | 07 November 1892 |
Citation | 18 Colo. 78,31 P. 498 |
Parties | SCHMIDT v. PEOPLE. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to criminal court, Arapahoe county.
Julius F. Schmidt was convicted of violating a statute providing for the inspection of fresh meat, and appeals. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
The act of March 21, 1889, concerning the inspection, before slaughter, of certain animals intended for human food, is in violation of the constitution of the United States in so far as such act provides that fresh meats, sound, healthy, and fit for human food, cannot lawfully be shipped into this state to be sold except upon condition that the animal or animals from which such meats have been taken shall have been inspected and certified as provided by said statute. This decision is based upon a decision by the supreme court of the United States.
Teller & Orahood, George W. McCrary, and Hugh Butler, for plaintiff in error.
Joseph H. Maupin, Atty. Gen., for the People.
There is no controversy as to the facts of this case. Plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted in the criminal court of Arapahoe county for the violation of a certain act of the general assembly of the state of Colorado entitled 'An act to provide for the inspection, before slaughter, of certain animals, the meat of which is intended to be sold, or offered for sale, as human food, and to prescribe penalties for the violations of the provisions of this act.' See Sess. Laws 1889, p. 244. The provisions of said act necessary to an understanding of the case are as follows etc. At the trial in the criminal court it was made to appear as a fact that the animal or animals, to wit, certain neat cattle, the meat of which was offered for sale by defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Duckworth
... ... Barber, 136 U.S. 313, 10 S.Ct. 862; Brimmer v ... Rebman, 138 U.S. 78, 10 S.Ct. 213; Voight v ... Wright, 141 U.S. 62, 11 S.Ct. 855; Schmidt v ... People, 18 Colo. 78, 31 P. 498; Farris v ... Henderson, 1 Okla. 384, 33 P. 380, 382. A statute may, ... upon its face, apply equally to ... ...
-
People v. Morgan
... ... 158, 39 S.Ct. 35, 63 L.Ed ... By ... counsel for defendant in error: State v. Duckworth, 5 Idaho ... 642, 51 P. 456, 39 L.R.A. 365, 95 Am.St.Rep. 199; State v ... Butterfield Live Stock Co., 17 Idaho 441, 106 P. 455, 26 ... L.R.A. (N. S.) 1224, 134 Am.St.Rep. 263; Schmidt v. People, ... 18 Colo. 78, 31 P. 498; Voight [79 Colo. 511] v. Wright, 141 ... U.S. 62, 11 S.Ct. 855, 35 L.Ed. 638; Standard Oil Co. v ... Graves, 249 U.S. 389, 39 S.Ct. 320, 63 L.Ed. 662; Texas Co ... v. Brown (D. C.) 266 F. 577, 258 U.S. 467, 42 S.Ct. 375, 66 ... L.Ed. 566; Pittsburgh, C ... ...
-
State v. Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
... ... Swift v. Sutphin, 39 F. 630, 3 L.R.A ... 238, 12 Am. St. 730; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S ... 313, 10 S.Ct. 862, 34 L.Ed. 455; Schmidt v. People, ... 18 Colo. 78, 31 P. 498; Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U.S ... 78, 11 S.Ct. 213, 34 L.Ed. 862; Harvey v. Huffman, ... 39 F. 646; Ex parte ... ...