Legal Opinion

City of St. Louis v. Jud

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided July 1, 1911PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.— Hon. Benjamin J. Klene, Judge. Ordinance 24297, section 2, under which, this prosecution was had, undertakes to prohibit methods of adulterations other than those to be found in the Revised Code of St. Louis. This action is brought for violation of subdivision 3 of See. 2 thereof, for adding to skimmed milk a foreign substance called “annatto,”' for the purpose of coloring said milk.

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.— Hon. Benjamin J. Klene, Judge. Ordinance 24297, section 2, under which, this prosecution was had, undertakes to prohibit methods of adulterations other than those to be found in the Revised Code of St. Louis. This action is brought for violation of subdivision 3 of See. 2 thereof, for adding to skimmed milk a foreign substance called “annatto,”' for the purpose of coloring said milk. Annatto is a coloring matter and a foreign substance. The evidence showed that it is absolutely harmless when used in a food product as a coloring matter. Said…

1Opinion of the CourtLamm, J.

This is one of eight companion cases to test the validity of the milk ordinances of St. Louis— all handed down at this delivery.

Jud was tried in the police court of St. Louis for having in possession on the 1st day of May,-1909, at a given place, with intent to sell and offer and expose the same for sale, sldm milk adulterated in that it was colored by annatto, whereby its inferiority was concealed and it was made to appear to be better and of greater value than it really was — all, contrary to ordinance 24297. Convicted anew on his appeal to the court of criminal correction and fined $25, he…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of St. Louis v. AmelnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
  2. City of St. Louis v. WortmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
  3. City of St. Louis v. PolinskySupreme Court of Missouri · 1905

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Harvey v. WrightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
  2. State ex rel. Bixby v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
  3. State ex rel. McClintock v. GuinotteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
  4. Shull v. BoydSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
  5. Koppel v. RowlandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928

5 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