Beha v. State
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court for Lancaster county. Conviction of selling oleomargarine colored to resemble butter. Tried below before Cornish, J.
1Opinion of the CourtHolcomb, J.
The defendants in the trial court, who appear here as plaintiffs in error, were convicted of -violating the provisions of section 24:5m2 of the Criminal Code (Session Laws, 1895, ch. 78, sec. 2). They were charged with having sold and with keeping for sale oleomargarine or imitation butter, colored to resemble butter made of milk and the cream thereof, the product of the dairy.
One of the grounds presented on which a reversal of the judgment of the lower court is asked is that the section on which the prosecution is grounded has no legal existence. It is argued that the provisions of the act…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Plumley v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- People v. . ArensbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- State v. AddingtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Butler v. Marshall ChambersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- McAllister v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1890
3Cited by5 opinions
- Thorin v. BurkeNebraska Supreme Court · 1945
- People v. FreemanIllinois Supreme Court · 1909
- Gembler v. City of SewardNebraska Supreme Court · 1939
- State ex rel. Ledwith v. SearleNebraska Supreme Court · 1907
- City of St. Louis v. PolinskySupreme Court of Missouri · 1905