The Sisseton weekly standard. (Sisseton, Roberts County, S.D.) 1892-1929, 1908-01-10
PURE FOOD KNOCKED OUT.
Full Text Of Opinion by the Supreme
Court Of South Dakota.

Full Text Of Opinion by the Supreme
Court Of South Dakota.
The habeas corpus writ which was
granted by the supreme court on the
application Of r. F. Brown, a whole.
sole druggist Of Sioux Falls, complete
~ sets aside the contention OF State
Food Commissioner Wheaton that the
amended law of 1907 requires patent
medicines to have printed on the bot.
tents.
The court holds in effect as follows
on the contentious in the case:
The complaint shows that on the
I'd day of December, 1907. at the CITY
of Sioux Falls, R. F. Brown did then
and there, being druggist engaged in
the business of selling drugs and med.
icines, wilfully, wrongly, and unlaw.
fully offer and expose for sale, and un.
lawfully sell to A. II. Wheaton, Ger.
tain prepared medicines, to-wit: One
bottle Of Peruna, one bottle of Ham.
burger drops, one bottle of Chamber.
1atn's Diarrhoea remedy, one bottle OF
Piso's consumption cure, one bottle OF
Kodol, and one bottle of DR.. Kings
new discovery, all of said prepared
medicines being then and there mis-.
branded, in that none of the said
medicines bore qualitive statement
OF what 1t was composed. n;-.:..
whether the act complained of con.
stitutes public offense depends upon
judicial power to supply certain terms
claimed to have been inadvertently
omitted by the legislature, and which
subject the petitioner to the operation
of penal statute, in which the word
druggist does not appear.
Section 2 authorizes such food and
dairy commissioner to appoint and
fix the compensation OF the depart.
ment analyst, and such inspectors and
Office assistants as he may deem nee.
essary to carry out the provisions OF
the act. Sections 3, and S, define
duties of the force, and provide for
their payment.
without any reference to either
drugs or medicines, the four succeed.
ing sections of the act are devoted to
a legislative definition of the term
food" and recital of what consti-
tutes it's adulteration or misbranding,
and Immediately following is section
10, which reads as follows: 1T shall
be unlawful for any person acting for
himself or as the servant or agent of
any other person, firm or corporation
to manufacture, sell, offer or expose
for sale any article of food which is
adulterated or misbranded within the
meaning of this act The possession
by any innkeeper, hotelkeeper, restau
rantkeeper, or boarding housekeeper
of any food or drug which is adulter.
ated or misbranded within the mean
ing of this act, shall be deemed to be
the keeping of such food or drug for
sale'
Neither the term druggist nor
medicine was employed by the legis.
lature in this provision and the un.
lawful possession of the adulteratec
or misbranded drug mentioned only
in the final sentence is unaccountably
limited to the dispensers of food
Section IS, consisting of eight sub.
divisions, is declarative merely OF
what conditions are essential to con.
stitute misbranded or adulterated
drugs or articles of food, but NO
language is used therein tending in
the slightest degree to evidence a
legislative intent to make anything
unlawful or justify the infliction of a
penalty for the sale of prepared med.
icine bearing no qualitive statement
of what it is composed
while this section regulates moth.
ing and is merely descriptive of the
articles of food and medicine men.
toned therein and is incapable OF
transgression by any person, the pro.
vision Immediately following, besing
section 26, declares that Amy person
violating any of the provisions Of the
preceding section of this act shall be
deemed guilty of misdemeanor, and
upon conviction thereof shall be pun.
ished by fine of not less than ten
nor more than one hundred dollars or
by imprisonment in the county Jail
not to exceed thirty days, or both such
fine and imprisonment for such of.
fense.'
Were it to be assumed, as contend.
ed by the counsel for the food and
dairy commissioner, that the expires.
sion, preceding section might be au.
thoritfvely changed to preceding
sections this prosecution would not
be maintainable for the reason that
there is nothing in section 10, nor in
any other provision of the pure food
law authorizing the arrest of a drug.
gist or making anything that is charg.
ed In the complaint a penal offense.
According to the elementary rule of
construction, the statutory enumera.
ton of persons of the same class by
specific terms, such as inn, hotel, res.
taurant or boarding house, must be
restricted to that class of individuals.
and no consideration of the mischief
to be remedied by the passage of the