The People v. . Arensberg
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal by defendant, Lippman Arensberg, from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the Second Department, affirming a judgment of the Court of Sessions of Kings county, affirming a conviction of defendant of selling oleomargarine in imitation of butter. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, J.
The record discloses an error in the charge of the trial judge to the jury. ■ He submitted to them the bare question whether the defendant had manufactured or sold oleomargarine not made from milk or cream, and charged that if he did he was guilty under the law. The language of the court was especially clear and decisive. The jury were told: “ If you believe that the defendant did sell this article called oleomargarine, and that it was not a producttion of pure, unadulterated milk, or cream of the same, then he committed an offense under the law. The simple question for you to decide is, did…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- The People v. . MarxNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
3Cited by13 opinions
- Colon v. . LiskNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- State v. SchlenkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- State v. TheriaultSupreme Court of Vermont · 1898
- Otani v. OtaniHawaii Supreme Court · 1927
- People v. . GuitonNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.