No. 4.] KEPORT OF DAIRY BUREAU. 251 



defendant's agent, acting within the scope of his employment, and 

 that he was supplied with wrappers properly marked for covering 

 the article sold ; and the presiding judge refused to instruct the 

 jury, as requested by the defendant, that, if the agent's failure to 

 use the wrappers was the result of inadvertence on his part, and 

 not intentional, the jury would not be justified in convicting the 

 defendant. Held, that the defendant had no ground of exception. 

 (Commonwealth v. Gray, 150 Mass. 327.) 



The defendant had for sale in his provision store oleomargarine 

 colored in imitation of yellow butter. It was in a closed and cov- 

 ered refrigerator, and could not be seen by customers, but there 

 was in the store a sign to the effect that oleomargarine was sold 

 there. Upon the occasion to which the complaint relates none of 

 the substance was sold or produced to view, except that a sample 

 was taken from the refrigerator by an agent of an official inspector. 

 The defendant was found guilty in the superior court. The 

 supreme court ordered the verdict set aside, for the following 

 reason : The case turns upon the meaning of the words " expose 

 for sale " in the statute under which the complaint was drawn. 

 The purpose of the statute is to prevent deception in the manu- 

 facture and sale of imitation butter, and the statute provides that 

 no person " shall Vender or manufacture, sell, offer for sale, expose 

 for sale or have in his possession with intent to sell " certain 

 articles. The phrase to be construed is perhaps susceptible of 

 more than one meaning. Whenever goods are placed for conven- 

 ient delivery upon expected sales they are put out and in one 

 sense exposed for sale, whether visible to customers or not. But 

 in our opinion the words are not so used in the statute under con- 

 sideration. The prohibited articles are designed and adapted to 

 deceive the eye ; and, because their appearance is likely to induce 

 those who see them to buy them as the genuine butter of which 

 they are in imitation, there is special reason for prohibiting their 

 exposure to view. The language is so full that it is not necessary 

 to give it a strained construction in order to make the statute 

 effective. Offering to sell, and having in possession with intent 

 to sell, are likewise prohibited in the same clause and under the 

 same penalty, so that it is easy for the pleader to select language 

 which describes the offence with reasonable accuracy. Similar 

 words are used in the statutes relating to milk and to intoxicating 

 liquors ; but as in such cases the charge of exposing for sale is 

 uniformly joined with that of illegal keeping, and as such a com- 

 plaint charges but one offence and is supported by proof of either 

 act (Commonwealth ■?;. Nichols, 10 Allen, 199; Commonwealths. 

 Dolan, 121 Mass. 374), it has not been necessary for this Court to 



