No. 4.] KEPORT OF DAIRY BUREAU. 253 



all needful regulations for the carrying into effect of the act does 

 not authorize the imposition of a penalty by a regulation where 

 none is imposed by the act. (United States v. Eaton, 12 Sup. Ct, 

 Rep. 764.) If the defendant had a license under the act of Aug. 

 2, 1886, and has paid a tax, this affords him no immunity. Sec- 

 tion 3 of that act, by incorporating section 3,243 of the U. S. 

 Revised Statutes into it, expressly repels the inference that the 

 payment of such a tax will legalize the traffic, and implies that the 

 prohibition or regulation of such traffic by State legislation is per- 

 missible." (State V. Newton, 21 Vroom, 534 ; Commonwealth v. 

 Crane, Suffolk, ss., March, 1893, 158 Mass. 218.) 



The Statute of 1891, chapter 412, section 5, requires every per- 

 son who furnishes, or causes to be furnished, to a guest in a 

 restaurant or a hotel, or at a lunch counter, oleomargarine or 

 butterine in the 'place or stead of butter, to notify him that the 

 substance furnished is not butter. The defendant was the pro- 

 prietor of a restaurant at which oleomargarine was furnished to 

 one Quinn, in the place or stead of butter. No oral notice was 

 given to him. There were signs in conspicuous places in the 

 restaurant bearing the words, " Butterine used only here," and on 

 the tables were bills of fare on which were printed the words, 

 " Only fine butterine used here ; " but Quinn saw neither of the 

 signs, and did not examine the bill of fare, and so had no actual 

 notice that the substance furnished him was not butter. Upon 

 these facts the jury returned a verdict of guilty ; the defendant 

 excepted and the supreme court overruled the exception, saying i 

 "If he had read the signs, or the statement printed on the bill of 

 fare, he would have had sufficient notice ; for, if knowledge that, 

 the substance furnished is not butter is in any way effectually 

 communicated to the guest, the law is complied with. The 

 statute does not require a distinct statement, either oral or written,, 

 to be given to each guest on every occasion when he is furnished 

 with oleomargarine or butterine in the place or stead of butter, but 

 is satisfied if, by any act of the person who furnishes it or causes 

 it to be so furnished, the guest is made aware of the fact that the 

 substance furnished is not butter." (Commonwealth v. Stewart, 

 Suffolk, ss., May, 1893, 159 Mass. 113.) 



Dealers in oleomargarine in this Commonwealth may often re- 

 ceive packages of oleomargarine from manufactories in other 

 States marked according to the laws of the United States and 

 not according to the laws of this Commonwealth. If, on receiving 

 such packages, they store them with the intention of marking them 

 as required by our statutes before they either expose them for sale, 

 or sell them or intend to sell them, there is no violation of our laws. 



