State v. Stokes
| Decision Date | 27 July 1916 |
| Parties | STATE v. STOKES. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Waterbury; William J. Larkin, Jr., Judge.
Information against John Stokes, charging the violation of a regulation of the board of commissioners of public health of the city of Waterbury, tried on a demurrer to the complaint. The demurrer was overruled and defendant found guilty as charged. He appeals, alleging error in overruling the demurrer. No error.
James M. Lynch, of Waterbury, for appellant. Francis P. Guilfoile and Charles S. O'Connor, both of Waterbury, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of a violation of a by-law or regulation of the board of commissioners of public health of the city of Waterbury, which prohibited under a penalty the sale of milk in any store, bakery, or butcher shop within the limits of the city "unless such milk shall be contained and kept in bottles tightly sealed." The regulation was passed pursuant to an amendment of the city charter found in the Special Laws of 1905, p. 639, which created the board and provided among other things that it might within the city regulate the sale of foodstuffs so far as the sanitary interests of the community are involved, regulate the sale of milk by licensing for a reasonable sum the vendors of the same and make such by-laws, rules, and regulations as in its judgment the preservation of the public health may require, not inconsistent with the laws and Constitution of this state and the United States. The complaint sets forth the offense in the language of the regulation. It was demurred to upon the grounds, that it violates the Constitutions of this state and of the United States, that the board was without power to make it, that the regulation of the sale of milk is governed by the statutes of the state, and that the facts set forth in the complaint do not constitute an offense.
Public Acts 1911, c. 221, fixes the standard quality of milk and penalizes the selling, as milk of standard quality, adulterated, diluted, skimmed, or partly skimmed milk, and also makes provision for the sale of skimmed and pasteurized milk if properly labeled. It provides also a penalty for the placing of offal, swill, kerosene, or vegetable matter in cans, bottles, and other vessels used as containers of milk. It provides that milk containing more than 1,000,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter shall be considered impure milk, but provides no penalty for the sale of such impure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gordon
...provisions from a temporary stand near a fairground); State v. Feingold, 77 Conn. 326, 332, 59 A. 211 (itinerant vendors); State v. Stokes, 91 Conn. 67, 70, 98 A. 294 (sale of milk in bulk); Hammerberg v. Holloway, 131 Conn. 616, 621, 41 A.2d 791, and Hammerberg v. Leinert, 132 Conn. 596, 5......
-
State v. Tyrell
...Iowa, 671, 81 N.W. 159; Commonwealth v. Lagorio, 141 Mass. 81, 6 N.E. 546; Dillon on Mun. Corp. (5th Ed.) vol. 1, § 231. In State v. Stokes, 91 Conn. 67, 98 A. 294, information sets out, in accordance with our ordinary practice, the terms of the regulation of the board of health violated. O......
-
Shelton v. City of Shelton
...and supersede it. If the ordinance be enacted after the general law in conflict with it, the ordinance will be void. State v. Stokes, 91 Conn. 67, 70, 98 A. 294. State v. Tyrrell, 73 Conn. 407, 408, 47 A. 686, we held that an ordinance which purported to prevent the sale and consumption of ......
- Sabas v. Gregory