Commonwealth v. Waite
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indictment for selling adulterated milk. The defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment, on the ground that the indictment set forth no offence; but the motion was overruled.
Read the full summary
Indictment for selling adulterated milk. The defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment, on the ground that the indictment set forth no offence; but the motion was overruled. At the trial in the superior court, before Putnam, J., the district attorney was allowed, under objection, to put in evidence a certificate of the result of an analysis of milk by Dr. James C White, a sworn inspector of milk appointed under St. 1864. c. 122, which showed that the milk in question consisted of sixty-two parts and a fraction of pure cow’s milk, and thirty-seven parts and a fraction of water…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, J.
It has been settled that it is an offence against St. 1864, c. 122, to sell milk adulterated by water, and that guilty knowledge on the part of the seller need not be alleged or proved. Commonwealth v. Farren, 9 Allen, 489. Commonwealth v. Nichols, 10 Allen, 199.
The defendant in this case contends that the statute is unconstitutional, because it is in derogation of common right. The substance of the argument is this : It is innocent and lawful to sell pure milk, and it is innocent and lawful to sell pure water; therefore the legislature has no power to make the sale of milk and water, when…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Commonwealth v. CrowlSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- People v. FerrarisSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1909