Case Name: The State of Ohio v. Rippeth
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1904-10-25
Citations: 71 Ohio St. 85
Docket Number: No. 8654
Parties: The State of Ohio v. Rippeth.
Judges: Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price and Summers.. JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 71
Pages: 85–92

Head Matter:
The State of Ohio v. Rippeth.
Oleomargarine — Restrictions in sale of — Sections 4200-7 and 4200-16, Revised Statutes — Sale for analysis comes under the statute — Adulteration of food.
A person who sells or delivers oleomargarine containing coloring matter to any person interested or demanding the same, for analysis as provided in section 4200-7, Revised Statutes, is guilty of a violation of section 4200-16, Revised Statutes.
(No. 8654
Decided October 25, 1904.)
Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscarawas county.
The defendant in error was charged, by affidavit filed with P. A. Carver, a justice of the peace in and for Franklin townshp, Tuscarawas county, with hav ing unlawfully sold and delivered to one Martin Cowen, oleomargarine to the amount of one pound, which oleomargarine then and there contained artificial (yellow) coloring matter, the name of which coloring matter was unknown to the affiant, contrary to statute in such case made and provided, etc. On this affidavit the defendant was put upon trial to a jury of twelve men. The purchaser of the said oleomargarine, Martin Cowen, is an inspector in the dairy and food department of the state of Ohio, and it appeared upon the trial that on the seventeenth day of January, 1901, the said Martin Cowen entered the grocery of the defendant in error, presented his card, which contained his name, address and official capacity, then and there stating to said defendant in error that he was a state food inspector and that he desired to see his oleomargarine. The defendant in error took said Cowen /around his counter and showed him the oleomargarine, which was done up in pound packages; Cowen said to Rippeth, I would like to have a pound of this oleomargarine for analysis, whereupon Rippeth said, all right, and delivered the oleomargarine and accepted the market price therefor. The same was taken to a chemist, Professor Hobbs, and was analyzed by him and proved to contain coloring matter.
At the close of the testimony offered by the state the defendant made a motion to the justice to direct a verdict in his behalf. The court overruled this motion, and no evidence being offered by the defense, the ease was argued by counsel and, after a charge by the court, was submitted to the jury, who returned a verdict of guilty. Motion to set aside the verdict was filed by the defendant and overruled by the justice, A bill of exceptions was prepared, signed and al lowed and proceedings in error prosecuted in the court of common pleas, where the judgment of the justice of the peace was affirmed. On petition in error in the circuit court the judgment of the court of common pleas was reversed, and this proceeding in error is prosecuted to reverse the judgment of the circuit court and affirm the judgment of the court of common pleas.
Mr. Roscoe J. Mauck; Mr. Henry Bowers and Mr. Wade H. Ellis, attorney general, for plaintiff in error, cited and commented upon the following authorities :
Drake v. State, 19 Ohio St., 211; Fouts v. State, 8 Ohio St., 98; Kain v. State, 8 Ohio St., 306; State v. Kelly, 54 Ohio St., 166; Dinkelbihler v. State, 6 Dec., 99; 4 N. P., 96; Commonwealth v. Murphy, 42 N. E. Rep. (Mass.), 504; State v. Hutchinson, 56 Ohio St., 573; secs. 4200-7, 4200-16, 7306a, Rev. Stat.
Mr. James G. Patrick, for defendant in error, cited and commented upon the following authorities:
Sections 4200-7, 4200-8, 4200-16, 4200-20, Rev. Stat.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Section 4200-16, Revised Statutes, makes it a penal offense for any person to "sell or deliver" any oleomargarine which contains coloring matter. This is a police regulation imposing a penalty irrespective of criminal intent; and it contains no exception in favor of any person, nor as to whom the prohibited article may he sold or delivered, nor for what purpose. The dealer in the adulterated article has it in his possession for sale, and sells or delivers the same at his peril. He cannot shield himself by the plea of ignorance in regard to its character, nor by the plea that he made the sale for analysis or for any other purpose. State v. Kelly, 54 Ohio St., 166; State v. Hutchinson, 56 Ohio St., 573.
Judgment of the circuit court reversed and judgment of the court of common pleas affirmed.
Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price and Summers.. JJ., concur.