State v. Finch
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The defendant was indicted in the district court for Hennepin county, and, upon a trial before Young, J., and a jury, was convicted of selling uninspected illuminating oil.
Read the full summary
The defendant was indicted in the district court for Hennepin county, and, upon a trial before Young, J., and a jury, was convicted of selling uninspected illuminating oil. Upon the trial, it appearing that the oil was sold by the defendant, and was drawn from a stationary tank that had no brand or device thereon showing that it hadi-been inspected, and upon which tank the word “approved” did not' appear, the court excluded evidence offered by the defendant to show’ that the oil had been previously inspected while in another recepta-ele, which -had been duly marked and branded “approved,” as…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
The question before us for decision may be thus-stated : If illuminating oil, manufactured from petroleum, has been once duly inspected and branded in this state, and if the same be> *434afterwards changed to another receptacle, to be sold, must it be reinspected and such receptacle branded ? and if sold therefrom without such reinspection and rebranding, is the person so selling it liable to criminal prosecution and punishment under section 118, chapter 6, of the General Statutes of 1878?
Section 116 (section 2 of the original act of 1876) makes it the duty of the inspector of oils to examine and…
2Cited by12 opinions
- State v. EndSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- State v. BreffeihlSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1912
- State v. ArnoldIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
- Street v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Gutterson v. PearsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.