74 Seventeenth Annum, Retort of the 



District, Pari 2, before Honorable Thomas P. Dinnean, justice. 

 The cases were as follows : 



People v. Simpson-Crawford Co., 62 Misc. Rep. 240. 

 People v. William II. Hale, G2 Misc. Eep. 240. 

 People v. Lazarus Friend, 62 Misc. Rep. 240. 



The questions involved in these .'! cases were practically the 

 same, namely, that the goods were sold in violation of the Agri- 

 cultural Law, in that they were manufactured so as to smell and 

 taste like butter, tin; product of the dairy. A judgment was recov- 

 ered in favor of the plaintiff, which judgment was rendered on 

 November 5, 1908, the court holding with the view of the plain- 

 tiff. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Term of the 

 Supreme Court which reversed the; decision of the municipal 

 court with leave to the plaintiff to go l<» the Appellate Division. 

 Justice Gildersleeve wrote the following opinion: 



The statute (Agricultural Law) governing these cases is very compre- 

 hensive. In section 26 it prohibits the use in the production of oleomar- 

 garine of any acid, deleterious substance or animal fats or animal or vege- 

 table oils, not produced from unadulterated milk or cream, " so as to produce 

 an article in imitation or semblance of natural butter." The statute further 

 provides that "any person manufacturing, selling, offering or exposing for 

 sale any commodity or substance in imitation or semblance of butter, the 

 product of the dairy, shall be deemed .guilty of a violation of the Agricultural 

 Law, whether lie sells such commodity or substance as butter, oleomargarine 



or under any other nan ■ designation whatsoever, and irrespective of any 



representations he may make relative to such commodity or substance." It 

 further provides that "no person shall coat, powder or color with any color- 

 ing matter whatever, butterine or oleomargarine, or any compound of the 

 same, or any product or manufacture made in whole or in part from animal 



fats or animal or vegetable oils, not produced from i lulterated milk or 



cream, by means of which such product, manufacture or compound shall 

 resemble butter or cheese, the product of the dairy; nor shall he have the 

 same in his possession with intent to sell the same, nor shall he sell or offer 

 to sell the same." So far as the statute may be construed as absolutely pro- 

 hibiting the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, it is unconstitutional; 

 and it only becomes valid when construed as prohibiting the sale of oleo- 

 margarine which, by artificial means, i- made to resemble butter in appear- 

 ance. (People v. Wahle, 124 App. Div. 702.) The Supreme Court of the 

 United States has held that oleomargarine is a well-known, wholesome 

 food product and a legitimate subject of interstate commerce. (Rchollenberger 

 v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1.) A person manufacturing' or selling oleo- 

 margarine may he legally reqxxired to sell it for and as what it actually is, 

 and upon ils own merits; and he is not entitled to the benefit of any addi- 



