No. 4.] REPORT OF DAIRY BUREAU. 259 



was corked only, it was not a compliance witli the requirement of 

 the Statutes of 1884, chapter 310, section 4, as to the sealing of 

 such reserved portion. The judge declined so to rule, and in- 

 structed the jury that they might consider the evidence as bearing 

 upon the credibility of the government witness. Helcl^ that the 

 defendant had no ground of exception. 



If, at the trial of an indictment on the Public Statutes, chapter 

 57, section 5, charging the defendant with having adulterated milk 

 in his possession, with intent to unlawfully sell the same, an analyst 

 in the employ of the inspector of milk of a city testifies that he added, 

 for the purpose of preserving it, a few drops of carbolic acid to the 

 sample reserved from milk delivered to him for analysis, it is a 

 question of fact for the jury whether the reservation of the sample 

 was in accordance with the requirement of the Statute of 1884, 

 chapter 310, section 4. (Commonwealth v. Spear, 143 Mass. 172.) 



At the trial of a complaint, under Public Statutes, chapter 57, 

 section 5, alleging that the defendant had in his possession adul- 

 terated milk, with intent unlawfully to sell the same, the evidence 

 showed that a wagon with the defendant's name and number on it 

 was standing upon a public street in a city at an early hour in the 

 morning; that the defendant's servant was on the wagon, and 

 there were several eight-quart cans in the wagon ; that a collector 

 of samples in the employ of the inspector of milk for the city took 

 a sample of milk from one of the cans, which was not marked 

 " skimmed milk," and that an analysis of the milk taken showed 

 that it was below the legal standard. Held, that there was evi- 

 dence of an intent on the part of the defendant to sell the milk, 

 which was properly submitted to the jury. (Commonwealth v. 

 Smith, 143 Mass. 169.) 



A complaint on the Statute of 1886, chapter 318, section 2, 

 alleging that on the first day of July, 1886, the defendant had in 

 his possession "one pint of milk not of good standard quality, 

 that is to say, milk containing less than thirteen per cent of milk 

 solids, with intent then and there unlawfully to sell the same 

 within this Commonwealth," is sufficient, without negativing the 

 exception of the months of May and June. 



The Statute of 1885, chapter 352, section 6, provides that sec- 

 tion 9 of the Public Statutes, chapter 57 (which relates to the sale 

 of adulterated milk), "is hereby amended so as to read as fol- 

 lows." The Statute of 1886, chapter 318, section 2, provides 

 that section 9 of the Public Statutes, chapter 57, " is hereby 

 amended so as to read as follows." In each section, after the 

 words quoted, there follows a sentence which covers the whole 

 subject of the original section. Held, that the Statute of 1886, 

 chapter 318, section 2, was a valid enactment. 



