No. 4.] REPORT OF DAIRY BUREAU. 243 



The cases in court were brought for the following viola- 

 tions of the law : — 



Serving oleomargarine in restaurants without giving 



notice, 



Absence of sign in store, 



Sales of oleomargarine when butter was called for, 

 Failure to mark exposed contents of opened tub, . 

 Sales of yellow oleomargarine, .... 

 Sales without municipal license, .... 

 Sales without marked wrapper, .... 

 Assaults on agents of the Bureau, .... 

 Delivery from wagon without sign on sides, . 



30 

 17 

 7 

 7 

 6 

 6 

 5 

 3 

 1 



82 



These violations of the law were all outside of Boston, 

 as, under the provision of the law requiring us to work in 

 harmony with milk inspectors and the Board of Health, we 

 have left the city of Boston, as has been previously reported, 

 to the milk inspector of that city, Dr. Charles E. Harrington, 

 who has performed his work with great faithfulness and 

 ability. 



Cases appealed from the district to the superior court have 

 been settled, in every case but one, by the defendant plead- 

 ing guilty. In that case the inspector had called for cook- 

 ing butter and been served with oleomargarine, and the jury 

 failed to agree, as the question was raised whether or not 

 "cooking butter" was a separate and distinct article of 

 commerce by itself, and therefore not what is meant by the 

 statute which prohibits the selling of oleomargarine when 

 butter is called for. 



The laws regulating the sale of oleomargarine arc such that 

 it is possible for a person, in one sale, to violate a number 

 of different statutes. If he sells yellow oleomargarine when 

 butter is called for, does it up in an unmarked wrapper, and 

 has no sign in the store, four laws are violated ; and usually, 

 where a person is trying to sell oleomargarine deceptively, 

 in order to carry out the deception, he will violate more 

 laws than one. But we find that many district court judges 

 dislike to entertain more than one case based on a single 

 transaction. In a few instances we have found judges who 



