State v. Hanson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was convicted in the municipal court of Minneapolis, Holt, J., of the offense set forth in .the opinion, and from the judgment of conviction he appealed. cited: People v. Arensberg, 105 N. Y. 123; Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 475; People v. Meyer, 44 App. Div.
Read the full summary
Defendant was convicted in the municipal court of Minneapolis, Holt, J., of the offense set forth in .the opinion, and from the judgment of conviction he appealed. cited: People v. Arensberg, 105 N. Y. 123; Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 475; People v. Meyer, 44 App. Div. (N. Y.) 1; Grosvenor v. Duffy, 121 Mich. 220; Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 2, 18; Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U. S.'30. cited: McAllister v. State, 72 Md. 390; State v. Newton, 50 N. J. L. 549; Palmer v. State, 39 Oh. St. 236; Pierce v. State, 63 Md. 592; State v. Snow, 81 Iowa, 642; Stolz v.…
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
The defendant was convicted in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis of the offense of selling a can of cottolene, manufactured in imitation of lard, and designed to take its place, without labeling the package “Lard Substitute.” He was sentenced to pay a fine of $25 and costs. He appealed from the judgment, and the important question for our decision is whether his conviction was justified by the evidence.
The statute upon which the conviction rests is G. S. 1894, §§ 7028, 7037. So far as here material, section 7028 is to the effect that every person who manufactures or sells any…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. CorcoranSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- State v. AslesenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. Armour & Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Peterson v. Village of CokatoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- State v. HansonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912