Commonwealth v. Proctor
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Complaint, alleging that the defendant, on July 21, 1894, “ did have in his custody and possession a certain quantity, that is to say one pint, of milk not of good standard quality, that is to say milk containing less than thirteen per cent of milk solids, with intent then and there unlawfully to sell the same within . this Commonwealth.”
Read the full summary
Complaint, alleging that the defendant, on July 21, 1894, “ did have in his custody and possession a certain quantity, that is to say one pint, of milk not of good standard quality, that is to say milk containing less than thirteen per cent of milk solids, with intent then and there unlawfully to sell the same within . this Commonwealth.” At the trial in the Superior Court, before Q-askill, J., there was evidence tending to show that on the day named in the complaint one James Gollinger, who was then and there in the employ of the defendant and engaged in his service, had in his custody and…
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
This was a complaint under St. 1886, c. 318, § 2, and the rulings of the Superior Court were right unless St. 1894, c. 425, has changed the law applicable to the case. Commonwealth v. Vieth, 155 Mass. 442.
It is the general rule of law that the possession of a servant is the possession of the master. In the present case, we think that the evidence showed that the milk was still in the possession and under the control of the defendant. St. 1894, c. 425, we think, was designed to exempt a producer of milk from prosecution on a complaint that the milk was not of good standard quality only when…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. ViethMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
3Cited by1 opinion
- City of St. Louis v. LiessingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905