COMMTSSTONKR OF AGRICULTURE TH 



This is not the. case of a suit by a private individual for his own gain, 

 and to enforce a private right, as were all the cases relied on by appel- 

 lant, but the case of an action by the State to compel obedience to a State 

 health law enacted for the protection and benefit of all the people of the 

 State. In some of the cases to which we have been referred, the court has 

 evidently been impressed with the enormous sums that might be recovered, 

 if each plaintiff was permitted to recover accumulated penalties, which 

 frequently would have resulted in imposing upon the delinquent defendant a 

 punishment out of all proportion to the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. 

 This consideration does not apply to the present case. While the judgment, 

 abstractly considered, is not inconsiderable, the evidence affords data from 

 which it can readily be computed that the value of the cream which defend- 

 ant filched from the milk dining the period that he pursued his illegal 

 practices, must have amounted to many times the sum for which the jury 

 rendered a verdict. If accumulated penalties might not be collected in 

 cases like the present, it is manifest that dishonest dealers could well afford 

 to take great chances of discovery and prosecution, and thus the enforcement 

 of the statute would be rendered most difficult and uncertain. 



The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs. 



Believing, as heretofore stated in this report to your honorable 

 body, that the intention of the Legislature in enacting tlje Agri- 

 cultural Latv was to prohibit the manufacture or sale of oleo- 

 margarine in imitation or semblance of butter, and the statute 

 as a whole when construed together would indicate that that 

 intention covered an imitation by either smell, taste or looks, I 

 caused samples to be gathered and actions to be brought against 

 dealers who were selling or exposing for sale goods that smelled 

 and tasted like butter, or that were alleged to so smell or taste. 

 This question had never been litigated. The first case 'was tried 

 in Batavia, 1ST. Y., in a municipal court, in which case the evi- 

 dence before the court established the fact that the goods sold or 

 exposed for sale did smell and taste like butter, the product of 

 the dairy. The court, however, found for the defendant on the 

 ground that in its opinion the Legislature did not intend to pro- 

 hibit such an imitation or semblance. Several cases were tried 

 in New York City involving the same question in which the 

 court held with the municipal court in Batavia. Finally, how- 

 ever, 3 cases were brought in New York City in a municipal 

 court of the city of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Third 



