Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1906-10-20

tent TO DO great bodily harm, came
up Wednesday Immediately follow
ing the oleo cases. They lasted but
a short time and resulted in the con-
viction of W. G. Corp:an and the
discharge of his brother Lyman.
The oleo case is of such state wide
reputation and will be talked of so
extensively that we publish here
with the judges charge to the jury
in FULL
CHARGE OF THE COURT.
State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, vs..
j. L. Mitchell, Defendant.
Gentlemen of the jury: The de
PENDANT in this case j. L. Mitchell is
charged with having violated the
provisions of chapter Isl of the
laws of 1901, which is entitled: "An
Act relating to sales of Oleomar-
garine, and amendatory Of section
4e07c of the Wisconsin Statutes of
1885, The essential part of this
law so far as it relates to this case
reads as follows: ANY person who
shall sell any article, pro-
duct or compound made wholly or
partly out of any fat, oil or oleagen-
Gus substance or compound thereof,
not produced from unadulterated
milk or cream from the same
which shall be in imitation
of yellow butter produced from such
milk or cream shall for the
first offence be punished" etc.
This, as I construe the law, pro-
hibits the sale as butter of any sub
stance made in imitation of butter
by the use of oils or fats not pro-
duced from pure milk or cream.
The object of the law is to preserve
the people from being deceived in
to buying something for butter that
is not in fact pure butter. IL was
not intended by this act to prohibit
the sale of oleomargarine by the
name Of oleomargarine, but to pre-
vent the sale Of oleomargarine as
butter. This is made evident by
the last clause of the law which
reads as follows: Nothing in this
section shall be construed to prohib-
it the manufacture or sale Of cleo
margarine in soparato- end- dis
tinct form and III such manner as
will advise the consumer of its real
character, and free from coloration
or ingredient that causes it to look
like butter"
The proof in this case shows that
the Oleomargarine that was sold by
the defendant was manufactured
and prepared for sale IN a separate
and distinct form. It was labelled
oleomargarine. The customer, that
is the purchaser, in buying it was
not deceived and knew he was get
ting oleomargarine. The proof in
this case also shows without ques-
ton that no coloring ingredient was
used IN order to give the product
that was sold by the defendant up
on the 18th of April the look of but
ter. It had a creamish or yellow
ish tinge. But the proof shows that
that arose entirely from the in
gradients that were usually used in
the manufacture of oleomargarine.
The proof in this case establishes
this, that prior to 1902 several
grades of oleomargarine were manu-
featured and that the lowest grade
contained cotton-see oil. AS gen
eral thing in the higher grades cot
ton-seed oil was not then used
After 1902 the higher grades were
manufactured with some cotton
seed oil, and that has been the case
from that time until now. The
proof esta blishes that the oleomarga
rine that the defendant sold and for
which sale he is prosecuted in this
case was manufactured by Swift &
Company and was composed of cleo
oil, that is the oil of beef fat, 45 per
cent, creamery butter % per cent,
milk and cream 10 per cent, cotton
seed oil 10 per cent, neutral lard
10 per cent and some salt. This
was the standard formula of said
company for this grade Of oleO-
margarine.
There is no proof in this case that
any coloring matter was used. The
coloring this product has is derived
from said ingredients that enter in
to its manufacture. In other words
there is nothing in this case that
tends to establish that there was
any purpose to deceive the people
into the belief that this was butter
either because Of its color or be-.
cause Of the manner in which it
was put mp and placed upon the
market. Now as oleomargarine is
understood to be, and it is not dis
=