State v. Armour & Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was charged in the municipal court of St. Paul with the offense of offering and exposing for sale a quantity of pork of less weight than represented. The complaint was tried on stipulated facts by Finehout, J., who found defendant guilty as charged. From the judgment and sentence, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtPhilip E. Brown, J.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a conviction, had in the municipal court of St; Paul, upon the complaint of one Anthony Friedmann, on a charge that the defendant “did wrongfully, unlaw*130fully, and wilfully and knowingly offer and expose for sale”- to the' said Friedmann certain "Boston butts” and "pork loins,” representing them to be of a certain weight, whereas in fact their true weight was less. The cause was submitted .to the trial court on stipulated facts. .
It is conceded that the intention of the state was to charge an offense under Laws 1911, p. 197, c. 156, entitled: “An act…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. Bridgeman & Russell Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
3Cited by6 opinions
- LaBere v. PalmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- State v. People's Ice Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- State v. Washed Sand & Gravel Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- City of Seattle v. YocumWashington Supreme Court · 1917
- People v. EscribaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.