State v. Eidsvold Creamery Co.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 23417.,23417. |
| Citation | 194 N.W. 17,156 Minn. 27 |
| Parties | STATE v. EIDSVOLD CREAMERY CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Minneapolis; T. H. Salmon, Judge.
The Eidsvold Creamery Company was convicted of selling butter adulterated with lard, and it appeals. Affirmed.
A variance in the name of the person to whom defendant was charged with selling adulterated butter cannot be taken advantage of in this court, unless raised in the court below.
The identity of the butter proven to have contained lard with that sold was sufficiently established.
The court was justified in finding the analysis of the state's chemist adequate proof of the presence of lard in the butter, and also that the lard reduced the quality and strength of the butter.
A hypothetical question, the answer of which tends to refute or weaken the testimony of an expert witness, may be asked him on cross-examination.
The trial court was justified in concluding that the defense attempted failed.
No reversible error is found in the rulings of the court. Sam J. Levy, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
Clifford L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., and Neil M. Cronin, City Atty., and Thomas B. Kilbridge, Asst. City Atty., both of Minneapolis, for the State.
The defendant, a corporation engaged in manufacturing butter in the city of Minneapolis, was charged with a violation of the Pure Food Law (chapter 495, Laws of 1921), in having sold a pound of butter adulterated with lard, thereby injuriously affecting the quality and strength of the butter. It was convicted, and appeals from the order denying a new trial.
[1] The evidence showed that the pound of butter was sold to C. J. Crooker. The complaint alleged a sale to C. J. Crooks. This is said to be a fatal variance. We think the point is made too late. It was never suggested or presented to the court below. The gravamen of the offense was the sale of the adulterated butter; the name of the purchaser was a mere incident to identify the sale.
[2] It appears to us that the butter analyzed by the state chemist was adequately proven to have been sold by defendant to C. J. Crooker, about the time alleged in the complaint. No good purpose would be served by setting out the evidence in that respect. Defendant's president, when on the witness stand, admitted that there was no question but that the butter in the package analyzed was the product of defendant. The package or carton containing this butter was properly received in evidence.
[3] There is really no evidence disputing that of Dr. Hortvet, the state's expert chemist, that lard was found in this pound of butter sold by defendant. Defendant's chemist concedes the crystals, developed and photographed by Dr. Hortvet in the analysis, to be those of lard. True, there was no quantitative analysis; however, the statute is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sweeney
...Objection to a variance cannot be made for the first time on appeal. State v. Brame, 61 Minn. 101, 63 N. W. 250; State v. Eidsvold Creamery Co., 156 Minn. 27, 194 N. W. 17. 4. The general rule in a criminal case is that evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that the accused ha......
-
Allred v. Great N. Flour Mills Co., 23373.
... ... of Thomas or to assert that the contract was ultra vires.It has long been the rule in this state that, where a corporation has received the consideration coming its way under an ultra vires ... ...
-
Allred v. Great Northern Flour Mills Co.
... ... "It ... has long been the rule in this state that, where a ... corporation has received the consideration coming its way ... under an ultra ... ...
- State v. Eidsvold Creamery Co.