Commonwealth v. Smith
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Ferraris (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1909)
- People v. Snowberger (Mich. 1897)
- Commonwealth v. Ober (Mass. 1934)
- Nies v. Anderson (Iowa 1917)
- State v. Schlenker (Iowa 1900)
- District of Columbia v. Lynham (D.C. Cir. 1900)
- People v. Smith (New York Court of General Session of the Peace 1889)
- People v. Roby (Mich. 1884)
- Wagstaff v. Schippel (Kan. 1882)
- State v. Halsted (N.J. 1877)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The St. of 1864, c. 122, § 4, prescribed as the penalty for selling or offering for sale adulterated milk, or milk to which water or any foreign substance has been added, a fine of twenty dollars. In prosecutions under this act, it was not necessary to prove the knowledge of the seller that the milk had been adulterated. Commonwealth v. Farren, 9 Allen, 489. The act of selling without knowledge was regarded as an act of criminal carelessness.
The St. of 1868, c. 263, § 1, prescribing for a like offence, with the additional fact that the seller knows the milk to be adulterated, a fine of one hundred dollars, treats the knowledge as an aggravation of the offence. This section does not repeal the former act by implication ; for both may stand together. Nor is the former statute expressly repealed; but the second section of the last named act recognizes it as still in force, by declaring that the penalty mentioned in the preceding section “ and that prescribed in the act to which this is in addition ” may be recovered in the manner which it states. This section declares that the act is in addition to the former act; and the fact that the statute is entitled “ an act to amend” the former act is immaterial. Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.