Weideman v. State

• Decision Date: 08 November 1893
• Parties: WEIDEMAN v. STATE.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

55 Minn. 183

56 N.W. 688

WEIDEMAN

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 8, 1893.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. The provisions of Gen. Laws 1891, c. 11, “An act relating to the sale of imitation butter,” are valid as a legitimate exercise of the police powers of the state.

2. The offense prohibited in section 1 of said chapter 11 is a misdemeanor, and the penalty therein specified is to be recovered in accordance with the provisions of Gen. St. 1878, c. 78, § 10, by a criminal prosecution in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Appeal from municipal court of Duluth; Ensign, Judge.

Petition in habeas corpus by Fred Weideman for release from custody under criminal proceedings. The petition was granted, and the state appeals. Reversed.

H. F. Greene and A. H. Crassweller, for the State.

West & Brady, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

In their brief herein, counsel for the state discuss two questions: First, the constitutionality of the act, for a violation of which the relator, Weideman, was arrested, entitled “An act relating to the sale of imitation butter,” (Gen. Laws 1891, c. 11;) and, second, the method of procedure under the same. Laws of this import, having in view the same general purpose, although relating, sometimes, to other articles, are nothing new in the legislation of this and other states. In other jurisdictions, so far as we are informed, they have uniformly been sustained as being within the police power of a state, and it is certain that they, as well as others with more stringent provisions, have been upheld in this court. Butler v. Chambers, 36 Minn. 69, 30 N. W. Rep.308;Stolz v. Thompson, 44 Minn. 271,46 N. W. Rep. 410;State v. Aslesen, (Minn.) 52 N. W. Rep. 220. As to the views of other tribunals, see Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678,8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 992, 1257;State v. Addington, 77 Mo. 110;Powell v. Com., 114 Pa. St. 265, 7 Atl. Rep. 913;People v. Arensberg, 105 N. Y. 123, 11 N. E. Rep. 277; State v. Marshall, 64 N. H. 549, 15 Atl. Rep. 210, in which a statute almost identical with chapter 11 was under consideration. There is no question whatsoever of the constitutionality of such legislation.

As we understand the position of the relator, (and we presume that it was upon this point that the district judge ordered him to be released from custody,) the municipal court was without jurisdiction to issue a warrant for his arrest, but should have proceeded, and could only proceed, against him to recover the prescribed penalty as in a civil action. The statute provides (section 1) that “whoever by himself or agent shall sell, expose for sale or have in his possession with intent to sell any article or compound made in imitation of butter or as a substitute for butter and not wholly made from milk or cream and that is of any other color than bright pink, shall be subject to the payment of a penalty of fifty (50) dollars and for a second and each subsequent offense a penalty of one hundred (100) dollars, to be recovered with costs in any court of competent jurisdiction.” We have purposely italicized certain words in the above quotations. In section 3, possession of the article or substance “prohibited” by the act is made prima facie evidence that the same is kept in “violation” thereof. Moneys derived from “fines” are to be paid into the state treasury, and in section 2 proceedings to enforce the provisions of the law are called “prosecutions.” It will thus be seen that the act forbidden is styled an “offense,” the words “penalty” and “fine” are used interchangeably, the article or substance against which the legislation is directed is referred to as “prohibited,” and also as kept in “violation” of the act, while proceedings to enforce its provisions are called “prosecutions.” We think it very clear that the legislature contemplated the...