State v. Smyth

• Decision Date: 10 February 1883
• Citation: State v. Smyth, 14 R. I. 100 (R.I. 1883)
• Parties: STATE v. WAYLAND R. SMYTH.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

14 R.I. 100

STATE v. WAYLAND R. SMYTH.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

February 10, 1883

Pub Stat. R.I. cap. 127, § 5, as amended by Pub. Laws R.I. cap 276, § 1, of March 23, 1882, provide:

" No person shall sell or exchange, or have in his possession with intent to sell or exchange, or offer for sale or exchange, adulterated milk or milk to which any foreign substance has been added."

Pub Laws R.I. cap. 276, § 3, of March 23, 1882, provide:

" In all prosecutions under this act, if the milk shall be shown upon analysis to contain more than eighty eight per centum of watery fluids, or to contain less than twelve per centum of milk solids, or less than two and one half per centum of milk fats, it shall be deemed for the purpose of this act to be adulterated."

Held, that § 3 above recited did not establish a rule of evidence, but defined a new offence.

Held, further, that the offence lay in the intent to sell or exchange such milk, not in possessing it.

Held, further, that § 3 above recited was constitutional and valid.

CONSTITUTIONAL questions certified to the Supreme Court under Pub. Stat. R.I. cap. 220, §§ 1-9.

Nicholas Van Slyck, for plaintiff.

Francis W. Miner & Thomas A. Jenckes, for defendant.

MATTESON J.

This is a complaint which charges in substance that the defendant, at Providence, on the 6th day of July, A.D. 1882, did have in his possession adulterated milk, to wit, milk which contained more than eighty eight per cent. of watery fluids, and less than twelve per cent. of milk solids, and less than two and one half per cent. of milk fats, as shown by analysis of said milk, with intent then and there to sell the same against the statute, & c.

Pub. Stat. R.I. cap. 127, § 5, as amended by Pub. Laws R.I. cap. 276, § 1, of March 23, 1882, read as follows:

" No person shall sell or exchange, or have in his possession with intent to sell or exchange, or offer for sale or exchange, adulterated milk or milk to which water or any foreign substance has been added."

Pub. Laws R.I. cap. 276, § 3, of March 23, 1882, is as follows:

" In all prosecutions under this act, if the milk shall be shown upon analysis to contain more than eighty eight per centum of watery fluids, or to contain less than twelve per centum of milk solids, or less than two and one half per centum of milk fats, it shall be deemed for the purpose of this act to be adulterated."

At the trial in the justice Court, the defendant moved to quash the complaint, because section third of the statute quoted above is unconstitutional.The court overruled the motion, and, the defendant offering no testimony, convicted him, and certified the case to this court for a decision upon the constitutional question raised.

The defendant contends that the section is unconstitutional because, as he alleges, it establishes a rule of evidence and makes it conclusive of the guilt of the accused.We do not take this view of the section.It does not establish a rule of evidence, but creates, or rather defines, an offence.It was the purpose of the statute to prohibit, not only the dealing in milk which had been adulterated, but also in milk of such inferior quality as...