Legal Opinion

State v. Aslesen

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 20, 1892PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal by defendant Knut Aslesen from an order of the Municipal Court of the City of Minneapolis, Mahoney, J., made February 4, 1892, refusing him a new trial. Appeal, also, of defendant Charles M. ’ Bassett from an order of the same court, made February 24, 1892, denying a new trial in his case.

Read the full summary

Appeal by defendant Knut Aslesen from an order of the Municipal Court of the City of Minneapolis, Mahoney, J., made February 4, 1892, refusing him a new trial. Appeal, also, of defendant Charles M. ’ Bassett from an order of the same court, made February 24, 1892, denying a new trial in his case. Complaint was made in the Municipal Court of the City of Minneapolis against each defendant under Laws 1891, ch. 12. Each was arrested, and pleaded not guilty, and tried and convicted; and each moved for a new trial, claiming the act to be unconstitutional. Laws 1891, ch. 12, under which appellant…

1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.

Bach of the defendants was convicted of a violation of the provisions of Laws 1891, ch. 12, regulating the manufacture and sale of lard, and of lard compounds and substitutes, and of foods prepared therefrom. Defendant Asiesen was convicted of selling a “lard substitute” called “cottoline,” consisting of a mixture of beef stearine and refined cotton-seed oil, without affixing to the package containing the same a label containing the words “lard substitute,” together with “the names and approximate proportions of the several constituents contained in the mixture or compound.” The defendant…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Butler v. Marshall ChambersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
  2. Stolz v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. E. Fougera & Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
  2. State ex rel. Young v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
  3. State v. W. S. Buck Mercantile Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1928
  4. State v. Armour & Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
  5. State ex rel. Weideman v. HorganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API