No. 4.] EEPORT OF DAIRY BUREAU. 255 



Oleomargarine was exposed for sale in the original package, 

 namely, a tub, the top of the cover of which had been duly marked, 

 as well as the side and bottom, but from which the cover had been 

 removed, disclosing the superficial surface of the oleomargarine 

 without any mark. Held, that the terms of the Statute of 1886, 

 chapter 317, section 1, had been complied with. (Commonwealth 

 V. Bean, 148 Mass. 172.) 



Supreme Court Milk Decisions. 



The fact that a collector of samples makes a purchase of milk in 

 a restaurant and retains a portion thereof for analysis, without dis- 

 closing that he is such a collector, and without giving to the person 

 from whom it was purchased an opportunity to ask for a sealed 

 sample, will not render evidence incompetent to show that the milk 

 so purchased was below the legal standard. (Commonwealth v. 

 Coleman.) 



The provisions of section 2, chapter 318, Statute of 1886, apply 

 to the keeper of a hotel who supplies milk to his guests to be drunk 

 by them on the premises. 



A principal is responsible under the statute for a sale made by 

 his servant, although he was not present, and did not consent to or 

 know of the particular sale, the servant not acting in violation of 

 orders. (Commonwealth v. Vieth, 155 Mass.) 



Under the Public Statutes, chapter 57, section 5, as amended 

 by the Statutes of 1886, chapter 318, section 2, relating to the 

 adulteration of " milk," it is equally an offence to have in one's 

 possession skimmed milk containing a foreign substance with intent 

 unlawfully to sell the same. (Commonwealth v. Wetherbee, 

 155 Mass.) 



On a complaint for the sale of milk not of good standard quality, 

 evidence ihat the milk was delivered under a special contract is 

 immaterial. 



If a buyer of milk takes a portion to a milk inspector, the latter 

 may testify on the trial of such a complaint as to the results of his 

 analysis. (Commonwealth v. Holt, 146 Mass. 38.) 



At the trial of a complaint, on the Statute of 1886, chapter 318, 

 section 2, for selling milk not of the standard quality, there being 

 evidence that the milk was skimmed milk, and sold from a measure 

 duly marked, the jury were instructed that the defendant would be 

 liable unless he sold the milk not as pure milk, but as skimmed 

 milk, and, further, that he would be liable unless the buyer had 

 notice or knowledge that the milk was skimmed milk. Held, that 

 the instruction was erroneous. (Commonwealth v. Smith, 149 

 Mass. 9.) 



