Waterbury Democrat., 1900-12-22
THAT "AIILk CASE"
Following is the Opinion of the Su-
 Drpmp taupt

folloWlng IS the Oplnicn of the Su-
 preme Court.
 Following is the opinion in full of the supreme court in the case of the state against Fred A. Tyrrell or as it was known in court, the milk case:''
 Supreme Court of Errors, Third Judicial District, October Term, 1JUU
 The State vs. Fred \. Tyrrell.
 Argued October 30th-decded De cember 18th, 1900.
 Andrews, c. J. There is no error The information is insufficient. Judg- ing the ordinance of the city of Wa terbury set forth in the statement by it's words, we should be led to believe that the purpose of the board of aldermen in passing it was to pre- vent the sale and consumption in that city of impure or adulterated milk. To accomplish that purpose the ordi- nance is intelligent, consecutive and adapted to the end in view. But the charter of the city forbids the board Of aldermen to enact any ordinance upon any matter which is or shall hereafter be regulated by any public statute, or the power to regulate which has been or shall be conferred upon any other authority by any public f statute. The General Statutes of 1888, Sections 2GJS and 2Gti4 inclusive
 
 adulteFation of milk; as also does chapter 2:55 of the Public Acts of 1895. If, then, the purpose of the aldermen was to regulate the sale of impure milk ill Waterbury, it would appear | that the ordinance Was in excess of | their power to enact So we must suppose that they had some other puI- 1 pose in mind. What that other pur- 1 pose was. does not, perhaps. very l Il l, :. | to inquire what it was. Ii all the milk that is brought into the city for sale i was known to he pure it would seem that the aldermen would have no oc- l c;fSion. even if they had the authority to do so, to pass an ordinance reQuir- ing license fee from the seller, or to i subject him to a rigorous and Offen- | SiYe inspection.
 We have no occasion to decide this ! Granting that the ordinance is not in valid (which We do for the purpose of this easel we think the demurrer was properly sustained. In every criminal information all the facts must be alleged which are necessary 1 to show ti>e defendants guilt. If all such facts are not alleged then the in l formation is insufficient. In testing i the sutficiency of any such information DO fact is supposed to exist except i such as appears in it either by direct averment or by necessary implication. | In the information before Us the de 1 fendant is charged with the doing of | certain thing without first having obtained from the board of health of said city of Waterbury q license so to do." Now upon the facts set forth in the information. and the court is not | informed of any others, if the defend ant had applied to the board of health of Waterbury for q license. that board could not have issued one to him The fourth section of the ordinance pnacts that tine license provided fol ! by the ordinance shall be issued only in the name of the owners of the vohi cleS by means of which tho business is carried on. But this defendant was not the owner of any vehicle at all If he had applied to the board ol health for license that board would have been obliged to refuse him one This case comes almost literally within the language used by this court in tht said case of State vs Gallagher. Thai is: That the complaint does not sci forth the conditions which show thai it was the duty of the defendant tt obtain a license nor those conditions which would enable him to obtain ono if he applied.
 There is no error.
 , In this opinion the other judges con erred.
 The foregoing is q true lDy of tht original opinion as filed with the re porter of the court: but the opinion i subject to alteration and addition b. the judges until printed ill the otficia reports
 JAMES P. ANDREWS, Reporter