The herald., 1896-10-25

flict with the act of congress adopted
August 2, 1886, providing for the manu-
facture of oleomargarine, and Is an at
tempt to interfere with interstate COM
merce. think that this statute Is Vaiu'
not being prohibitory and not In connict
with said act of congress; but l also
have arrived at the conclusion tnat the
defendant in this case has not violated
the provisions Of said statute ana con-
sequently is not guilty.
A second complaint was filed against
said defendant charging that at the
same time and place he did Wlli1uily anu
unlawfully sell certain substance de-
signed to be used as a substitute for but
ter without delivering to the purchaser
thereof at the time Of said sale copy
of the statement as required by law
showing the name of said substance, ana
the name and address OF the manufac-
turer thereof, the name OF the pace
where the same was manufactured or
nut up, and the names and actual per-
centage of the various ingredients used
in the manufacture thereof.
Section Of said act provides that the
manufacturer "shall prepare state
ment, printed in plain Roman type OF
size not smaller than plea, stating in the
English language it's name, and the
name and address of the manufacturer,
the name Of the place where manufac-
tured or put UP, and also the names and
actual percentages of the various In
gradients used in the manufacture of
such imitation butter. and
shall place copy OF said statement
within and upon the contents of each
tub firkin, box or other package as Is
commonly and most conveniently OPEN
ed: and shall label the top and side OF
each tub, firkin, box, or other package,
by affixing thereto copy OF said state
ment in such manner, however, as not
to cover the whole or any part OF said
mark of Substitute for butter "
Section in part provides that, mo
person, by himself or another, shall sell
: = any substance designed to De
used as a substitute for butter
unless he shall deliver to the
purchaser, at the time of the sale, a
copy of the statement described IN Sec
tion 3 of this act"
The undisputed evidence in this case
is: That defendant sold to the COM
planning witness, at the time and place
alleged in the complaint, ten pound
tub Of limitation butter" or "oleomar-
garine;" that said tub had upon 1t each
and all of the statements and markings
required by section three of said act,
Including the words Substitute for but
ter" and upon the top, and upon the
side Of said tub, and within said tub
and upon the contents thereof, the
following statement, printed as pre-
scribed by section three:
ITO purchaser: This is limitation
butter or "oleomargarine, and is used
as a substitute for dairy or creamery
butter.
percentage of ingredients is as fol-
lows:
Creamery butter, rs per cent; neu-
trail, 20 per cent; butter oil, 10 per cent;
oleo oil, 35 per cent; cream, milk and
salt, 10 per cent; total, 100 per cent.
1T is manufactured by
ARMOUR PACKING CO.,
Kansas City, Kansas.
Thus there were three of those state
ments, two upon the outside and one
upon the inside of said tub.
All of said statements were delivered
to the purchaser with the tub at the
time of sale. 1t also appears in evidence
that oleomargarine is sold by the roll
and pound not in the original package,
and when SO sold it is necessary for the
seller to furnish to the purchaser one
copy of said statement at the time Of
delivery, in order to comply with the
provisions of section six of said act
The defendant did not furnish loose
copy of said statement to the purchaser
and for this reason the People demand
the conviction of defendant and claim
that he is guilty of violating the provis-
ion of said act.
1t is apparent that the defendant could
have sold ten pounds of oleomargarine
In rolls and have protected himself by
delivering to the purchaser one loose
copy of said statement; and yet, the
People contend, that because defendant
sold ten pound tub. and with 1t de-
livered three copies of said statement,
that he Is guilty. because he did not