Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent. v. Lipman Arensberg, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-10-29
Citations: 103 N.Y. 388
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent. v. Lipman Arensberg, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 388–402

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent. v. Lipman Arensberg, Appellant.
In order to sustain an indictment under the provision of the act of 1885 (§ 7, chap. 188, Laws of 1885, amended by chap. 458, Laws of 1885) prohibiting the manufacture or sale of any article “not produced from unadulterated milk or cream from the same,” which is “ in imitation or semblance of or designed to take the place of butter,” it must be made to appear that the article manufactured was, by the use of ingredients, not necessary or essential to the article itself, made in imitation or semblance of butter; the manufacture of an article simply “ designed to take the place of butter ” is not an offense, as so much of the provision is unconstitutional.
Upon the trial of an indictment for a violation of said provision, it appeared that defendant sold the article known as oleomargarine. The court charged in substance that the simple question for the jury to determine was, as to whether the defendant had manufactured or sold an
article known as oleomargarine, which, was not made of unadulterated milk or cream, and if he did do so, he was guilty. Held error. (Andrews and Earl, JJ., dissenting.)
People v. Arensberg (103 N. Y. 358), reversed.
(Argued June 9, 1886;
decided October 29, 1886.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made May 10,1886, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Sessions in and for the county of Kings, entered upon a judgment convicting the defendant of a misdemeanqr, in violating section 7 of the act, chapter 183, Laws of 1885, as amended by chapter 458 of that year. (Reported below, 40 Hun, 358.)
It appeared upon the trial that defendant sold oleomargarine, which was composed of animal fat or oils not produced from milk or cream; it was asked for and sold as oleomargarine.
The further material facts appear in the opinion.
Frederic R. Coudert and Wheeler H. Peekham for appellant.
James W. Ridgway, Edward B. Thomas and William P. Quin for respondent.
In section 7 of chapter 183 of the Laws of 1885, as amended, the words “ or designed to take the place of” can be separated from the other provisions of the section. (Village of Deposit v. Vail, 5 Hun, 313; In re De Vaucene, 31 How. 343-4; People, ex rel. Rochester, v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 566; People, ex rel. v. Kenney, 96 id. 302-3; Durkee v. Mayor, etc., id. 491-2; People v. Mark, 99 id. 383-5 ; People v. Cipperly, 37 Hun, 320; 101 N. Y. 634; Cooley’s Const. Lim. 178.) No guilty knowledge or intent to deceive is required to constitute a violation of section 7. (U. S. v. Bayard, 16 Fed. Rep’r, 384 ; Comrs. v. Farren, 9 Allen, 489 ; Comm. v. Smith, 103 Mass. 445; Comm. v. Wentworth, 118 id. 441; note to Farrell v. State, 30 Am. Rep. 617-20 ; Baker v. Walling, 1 Cow. 77; Morris v. People, 3 Denio, 403; Rogers v. Jones, 1 Wend. 236; Perry v. Edwards, 44 N. Y. 225; People v. Cipperly, 37 Hun, 320-3; Howard v. Moot, 64 N. Y. 269; Cagwin v. Town of Hancock, 84 id. 537; Phelps v. People, 72 id. 353.) The police power of the State legislature in its broadest sense includes all legislation and almost every function of civil government. (N. O. Gas Co. v. La. Light Co., 115 U. S. 661; Beer Co. v. Mass., 97 id. 33; Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 id. 62; Munn v. Ill., 94 id. 125; Comm. v. Alger, 7 Cush. 85; State v. Addington, 12 Mo. App. 221; Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 666.) There is authority to suppress any trade which is injurious to the" public health, welfare or morals. (Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y; 413,451, 459, 474, 486 ; Bartemyer v. Iowa, 85 U. S. 129 ; Beer Co. v. Mass., 97 id. 25; Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 666; Phelps v. Racey, 60 id. 10; Board of Health v. Heister, 37 id. 663 ; Cronin v. People, 82 id. 323; Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Barbier v. Connally, 113 U. S. 27; Soon Hing v. Crowley, id. 703; Munn v. Ill, 4 Otto, 113; N. O. W. Works Co. v. Rivers, 115 U. S. 679; N. O. Gas Co. v. La. Gas Co, id. 660; Sp. Val. W. Works v. Schottler, 110 id. 347; Mobile v. Yuille, 3 Ala. [N. S.] 140; State v. Jackson, 80 Miss. 177; Pace v. Ala., 106 U. S. 585 ; Nevendorff v. Duryea, 63 N.Y. 563.) Police laws are not unconstitutional because they impair property or interfere with its full enjoyment or individual rights. (Thorpe v. R. & D. R. R. Co., 24 Vt.149; Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass. 315; Hall v. Thompson, 48 Sup. Ct. 481; Phelps v. Racey, 60 N. Y. 14; Bertholf v. O’Reilly, 74 id. 521.) The legislature may pass police laws which incidentally regulate interstate commerce. Property within a State, wheresoever made, must be subject to this power. (Phelps v. Racey, 60 N. Y. 15 ; Munn v. 111., 4 Otto, 135; State v. Addington, 77 Mo. 110; In re Brosnahan, 18 Fed. Rep’r, 54.) Prohibitions and regulations applicable to all classes of citizens are not violations of the thirteenth or fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States (Munn v. Ill., 4 Otto, 125; Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall. 37; Bartmyer v. Iowa, 18 id. 37; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 407; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 id. 27.) The Constitutions of the United States and our own State constitute the only re stricfcion or limitation of the legislative power. It is aside from these limitations, supreme, uncontrollable and omnipotent in respect to all other matters and subjects.” (Clark v. City of Rochester, 3 Abb. 123; Phelps v. Racey, 60 N. Y. 14; Heywood v. City of New York, 7 id. 324; In re Townsend, 39 id. 174; Brooklyn Pk,. Com'rs v. Armstrong, 45 id. 244; In re Deansville Cem. Asso., 66 id. 572; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 520; Davidson v. N. O., 96 id. 104; Bertholf v. O' Reilly, 74 N. Y. 516; Cooley’s Const. Lim. 197-8, 86-7 Boyd v. Ala., 94 U. S. 650; Beer Co. v. Mass., id. 25, 35; Bd. of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 667-8.) Section 7 was enacted “to prevent deception in sales of dairy products, and to preserve the public health.” The courts are bound to accept as final the declaration of the legislature as contained in the title to the act and expressly made in section 20 thereof. (People v. Albertson, 55 N. Y. 50; People v. Draper, 15 id. 532, 545, 555; In re El. R. R. Co., 70 id. 351; People, ex rel. Sage, v. Schuyler, 79 id. 201; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 710; People v. Sheppard, 36 N. Y. 289; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 31; Phelps v. Nowlen, 72 N. Y. 45; Wehle v. Connor, 83 id. 238.) The legislature, under its police power, can prevent the counterfeiting of a necessary article of food, which for centuries has been made from well-known and acknowledged wholesome and nutritious ingredients, in substantially the same way; and of a particular color and appearance. (Blazier v. Miller, 10 Hun, 436; Palinsky v. People, 73 N. Y. 70; People v. Cipperly, 101 id. 634; Bartmyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 136; Commonwealth v. Holbrook, 92 Mass. 199; Commonwealth v. Waite, 93 id. 264; Commonwealth v. Carter, 132 id. 12; State v. Addington, 77 Mo. 117; In re Brosnahan, 18 Fed. Rep’r, 53; State v. Ah Chew, 40 Am. Rep. 489 ; Commonwealth v. Powell, MS. Opin.; Cronin v. People, 82 N. Y. 323; 37 Hun, 324-25 ; In re N. Y. El. R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 351; State v. Addington, 77 Mo. 117; People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 383, 384, 385.) It is a valid exercise of the police power of the legislature. (People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 384; People v. McGann, 34 Hun, 360, 363; Commonwealth v. Waite, 93 Mass. 264; State v. Addington, 12 Mo. App. 211; In re Brosnahan, 18 Fed. Rep’r, 53 ; In re Middletown, 82 N. Y. 199; Goodrich v. Russell, 42 id. 184.) Every intendment is in favor of the constitutionality of the section. (People, ex rel. Rochester, v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 558-59; Kerrigan v. Force, 68 id. 385 ; In re El. R. R. Co., 70 id. 367; People, ex rel. Hatfield, v. Comstock, 78 id. 361; Weismer v. Village of Douglass, 67 id. 91; People, ex rel. Murphy, v. Kelly, 76 id. 489.) In considering this section as designed “to prevent deception in the sale of dairy products, and to preserve the public health,” the decisions as to trade-marks are pertinent. (Newman v. Alvord, 51. N. Y. 195 ; G. & H. Manf'g Co. v. Hall, 61 id. 233 ; Coats v. Holbrook, 2 Sandf. Ch. 653, 657 ; Coman v. Crump, 70 N. Y. 578-9 ; Hier v. Abraham, 82 id. 525 ; Selchow v. Baker, 93 id. 65; Taylor v. Carpenter, 11 Paige, 292; Blofield v. Plain, 4 Barn. & Adol. 410; Godillot v. Harris, 81 N. Y. 266.) The section can be sustained as fixing a standard for butter. (People v. Cipperly, 37 Hun, 327.)

Opinion:
Finch, J.
This record discloses an error in the charge of the trial judge to the jury. He submitted to them the bare question whether the defendant had manufactured or sold oleomargarine not made from milk or cream, and charged that, if he did, he was guilty under the law. The language of the court was especially clear and decisive. The jury were told, " if you believe that the defendant did sell this article called oleomargarine, and that it was not a production of pure, unadulterated milk, or cream of the same, then he committed an offense under the law. The simple question for you to decide is, did this defendant, or did he not, sell an article known as oleomargarine, and was that article made of pure, unadulterated milk and' cream ? If he did so sell that article, and if it was not so made, he is guilty of a violation of this statute." It would be difficult to make the direction plainer. But the guilt of the prisoner did not and could not lie in the simple manufacture and sale of the article, and depended upon the furtner inquiry whether it was manufactured in imitation or semblance of butter ; whether by the use of ingredients not necessary or essential to the article itself it was sought to accomplish such imitation or resemblance. The proof showed that when oleomargarine was put upon the market in its normal condition, and before the addition of ingredients designed to modify its natural taste and color, it was of a pearl-white hue resembling tallow, but that coloring matter was sometimes added. It was to prevent such or similar imitations that the act of 1885 was framed. Section 7 forbids two things; The manufacture, not from milk or cream, of an article or product in imitation or semblance of butter, or designed to take the place of butter. The latter clause is ineffectual, as we held in the Marx Case. It was under the first alone that the defendant could be convicted, and yet the charge of the court ignored this element of the offense entirely, and missed the precise point of the accusation. Whether the oleomargarine manufactured by the defendant was or was not an imitation or semblance of butter became the material inquiry, but was withheld from the jury, and they were instructed to convict upon proof of the manufacture and sale of the article known as oleomargarine. Practically that was a ruling as matter of law that the article thus known is an imitation of butter, whereas it may or may not be, and the question whether in a given case it is or not is one for the jnry. A sample of the product manufactured by the defendant was produced before them, and open to their observation. The vital point of the alleged crime is the manufacture and sale of an article which is an imitation and semblance of butter, and so is calculated to deceive, and indicates a deceptive purpose, immediate or ultimate, and that is a question of fact which the court was not authorized to determine as a matter of law, but upon the evidence produced should have submitted it to the jury. It is said that the imitation was admitted, and the case tried on that assumption. I am unable to agree in that proposition. I do not think the imitation was conceded, and a distinct cxcop tian was taken to the charge which, ignored the fact of imitation as essential to the crime, and was argued before us on the appeal.
For this error, without considering the constitutional question, the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.
99 N. Y. 377.