Case Name: PEOPLE v. BLAJIAN et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-06-28
Citations: 154 N.Y.S. 123
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE v. BLAJIAN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 154
Pages: 123–123

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. BLAJIAN et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
June 28, 1915.)
Food <@=>16—Milk—Adulteeation—Penalty.
In an action to recover the penalty for selling adulterated milk, where the evidence was undisputed that the milk offered for sale by the defendants, on analysis, showed 10 per cent, excess of water over the standard for adulterated milk, judgment for the defendants was improper.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Food, Cent. Dig. § 16; Dec. Dig. <@=16.]
<§rs>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action for a penalty by the People against Kirkor Blajian, Adey Naturian, and Gaston Manuelian, doing business under the firm name and style of the O. K. Market Company. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and judgment directed for the People.
Argued June term, 1915, before GUY, BIJUR, and PAGE, JJ.
Egburt E. Woodbury, Atty. Gen. (Robert P. Beyer, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the People.
Walter Scott Kennedy, of New York City, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This action is to recover a penalty for selling adulterated milk. The defendant offered no testimony upon the trial. The standard for adulterated milk is milk containing more than 88.50 per cent, of water or fluids and milk containing less than 11.50 per cent, of milk solids.
The evidence in this case is undisputed, and shows that the analysis of the milk offered for sale by defendants contained 89.32 per cent, of water and 10.68 per cent, of milk solids. The chemists making the analysis testifying that there was at least 10 per cent, excess of water, for what reason the judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants it is impossible to determine. The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and judgment directed in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $100, with appropriate costs in the court below.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment directed for the plaintiff for the sum of $100, with appropriate costs in the court below.