SS Ninth Annual Report of the 



opinion of Judge Lambert at Special Term as its own (45 App. 

 Div., 631), and this case has since been affirmed by the Court of 

 Appeals, 164 N. Y., 93. 



The athorities relied upon by plaintiff are not in point. 



In the court below plaintiff relied upon the cases of People v. 

 Cipperhj, 101 N. Y., 634, 37 Hun, 324, and People v. Glrard, 145 

 N. Y., 105. 



These cases are very clearly distinguishable, as is pointed out 

 in the opinion of the learned justice at Special Term (fols. 30 to 

 35) and in the opinion of the learned Appellate Division (fols. 

 57 et seq). 



The statute in question is not necessary to prevent adultera- 

 tion or the introduction of unwholesome or harmful matter into 

 dairy products, as these are already prohibited by a different 

 statute. 



Section 22 of the Agricultural Law (last amended by chapter 

 101 of the Laws of 1900), provides as follows: 



" Prohibition of the sale of adulterated milk. — No person shall 

 sell or exchange, or offer or expose for sale or exchange, any 

 unclean, impure, unhealthy, adulterated, or unwholesome milk 

 or any cream from the same, or any unclean, impure, unhealthy, 

 adulterated, colored, or unwholesome cream, or sell or exchange 

 or offer or expose for sale or exchange any article of food made 

 from such milk or cream or manufacture, from any such milk 

 or cream any article of food." 



This statute is certainly sufficient to protect the health of the 

 public, and the Attorney-General has instituted a large number 

 of proceedings for alleged violation of this statute by the intro- 

 duction into dairy products of preservatives which were claimed 

 by him to be harmful. If the preservative used by the defend- 

 ant in the case at bar were harmful, he could be proceeded 

 against for violation of the provisions of section 22 of the Agri- 

 cultural Law, under which an issue of fact would be raised 

 whether the preservative used by defendant as a matter of fact 

 is harmful or not. 



See People v. Hills, App. Div. 4th Dept, decision rendered 

 October, 1901. 



