Case Name: PEOPLE v. BOSCH et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-12-30
Citations: 114 N.Y.S. 65
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE v. BOSCH et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 114
Pages: 65–66

Head Matter:
(61 Misc. Rep. 369.)
PEOPLE v. BOSCH et al.
-(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 30, 1908.)
Adulteration (§ 4 )—Sale of “Adulterated Milk”—Intent.
One charged with selling “adulterated milk,” defined by Agricultural Law (Laws 1893, p. 660, c. 338) § 20, as milk containing more than 88 per cent, of water or less than 12 per cent, of milk solids, cannot defend by showing that he sold the milk as given by the cows; the intent being immaterial.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Adulteration, Cent. Dig. § 7; Dec. Dig. § 4.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 210-212.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn, First District. Action by the People of the State of New York against John Bosch and another. From a Judgment for defendants, after trial without jury, the People appeal. Reversed.
Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.
William Adams Robinson, for the People.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
MILLER, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court in favor of the defendants in an action brought to recover the penalty prescribed by the statute for selling adulterated milk. Section 20 of the agricultural law provides, inter alia, that the term "adulterated milk" means milk containing more than 88 per centum of water or fluids or less than 12 per centum of milk solids. Laws 1893, p. 660, c. 338, as amended.
It is undisputed that duplicate samples were taken as prescribed by section 12 of the agricultural law. It is likewise .undisputed that the samples so taken were both found, on analysis, to contain more than 88 per centum of water and less than 12 per centum of milk solids. No evidence was offered on behalf of the defendants; nevertheless the Municipal Court gave judgment for the defendants. Upon the undisputed evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment, as it was established that the milk was adulterated within, the meaning of the statute, and it was conceded that it was offered and exposed for sale by the defendants. It may be that the Municipal Court justice decided the case on the supposition that the milk, as given by the cow, contained too much water; for a suggestion of that possibility is found in the cross-examination of the chemist called by the plaintiff. But that is not a defense. The intent of the defendants is not material.
The judgment is reversed. All concur.