70 Seventeenth Annual Report of the 



Copies of this letter were sent out broadcast over the state and 

 forwarded to parties believed to be interested in knowing the 

 statute for the purpose of giving information to all dealers as to 

 the law in the stale of New York so that they might not, under 

 a misapprehension, violate its provisions. 



LITIGATION 



During the year, there have been a few leading eases taken to the 

 Court of Appeals seme of which went to the Appellate Division, in 

 which questions were raised as to the constitutionality or the inter- 

 pretation of the provisions of article 3 of the Agricultural Law 

 pertaining to dairy products. One of these concerned the question 

 of the right to sell skimmed milk in the city of New York. It was 

 a case tried by the department and was entitled People v. Liberman 

 Dairy Company, Special. This is a case in which the defendant in 

 operating milk gathering stations or plants located in St. Law- 

 rence County had, by itself or through its agents, added a substance 

 known as skimmed milk to whole ®r pure milk and shipped the 

 resultant commodity to New York City and sold or exposed same 

 for sale as and for pure milk. In this case in the trial court, the 

 defendant demurred to the plaintiff's complaint. The court over- 

 ruled the demurrer and from this ruling the defendant took an 

 appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. That 

 court affirmed the judgment of the lower court with costs, with 

 leave to the defendant to withdraw demurrer and to answer com- 

 plaint on payment of costs. From this decision the defendant 

 again appealed, going to the Court of Appeals, where the case was 

 considered and handed down, under date of June 15, 1909, in 

 which the court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division 

 in the following words: "The following question was certified: 

 Does the amended complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a 

 cause of action ? Order affirmed, with costs, and question certi- 

 fied answered in the affirmative." This decision was concurred 

 in by Gray, Bartlett, Werner, Vann and Hiscock, JJ. Justices 

 Cullen and Haight dissented upon the ground that the fact that 

 the prohibition of the sale of skimmed milk in New York and 

 Kings counties is unqualified, while the Legislature recognized 

 such milk as an article fit for sale in the other counties of the 



