Case ID: ohio-st_55/html/0115-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.'", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State of Ohio v. Dreher.
    
      Pure food laws — Sale of chicory as coffee, an offense.
    
    To offer for sale, as an article of food, liquid chicory and coffee as “liquid coffee” is an offense punishable by the pure food laws of the state.
    (Decided June 23, 1896.)
    On exceptions of the Prosecuting Attorney to the rulings .of the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county.
    L. Dreher was arrested, convicted and fined before a justice of the peace on an affidavit substantially as follows: That on November 25, 1895, he did, at the county of Cuyahoga, in the city of Cleveland, “unlawfully offer and expose for sale a certain compound and mixture, then and there labeled, exposed and offered for sale as and for liquid coffee, as and for an article of human food, to be used with, as and for food, and to be consumed as human food, which said mixture and compound, offered and exposed for sale as and for liquid coffee, as and for an article of human food, and to be consumed as human food, was composed of coffee, chicory, sugar and water; and which said package containing said mixture did not have . thereon a label with the name and per cent, of each ingredient therein contained, and that the same was not injurious to health.”
    A motion was made to quash the affidavit on the ground, that it charged no offense against the laws of the state, which was overruled and exceptions taken. On error to the common pleas the conviction was reversed and the defendant discharged.
    The prosecuting attorney excepted to the ruling and took a bill of exceptions, and the case is now here on his exceptions to the ruling of the common pleas.
    
      Olar-he and Thompson, for plaintiff in error.
    
      ■J. A. Osborne, for defendant in error.
   By the Court.'

We think the court erred in reversing the conviction. Under the 4th clause of section 3, of the act to provide against the adulteration of foods and drugs, as amended April 22, 1890 (87 Laws, 248), it is provided that an article shall be deemed to be adulterated, “If it is an imitation of, or is sold under the name of another article.” The affidavit in this case in substance charged that the defendant offered hnd exposed for sale as an article of food, liquid coffee and chicory as and for liquid coffee. This is an offense under the statute, whether the compound be deleterious or not. It is a fraud on the purchaser, and one of the purposes of the statute was to protect him against such frauds.

Exceptions sustained.