2G0 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. [Pub. Doc. 



The Statute of 1884, chapter 310, section 4, providing for the 

 reservation and sealing, before commencing the analysis, of a por- 

 tion of the sample of milk taken for analysis, is impliedly repealed 

 by the Statute of 1886, chapter 318, sections 1 and 3. (Common- 

 wealth V. Kenneson, 143 Mass. 418.) 



The Statute of 1885, chapter 352, section 8, provides that no 

 person shall sell, or have in his possession with intent to sell, 

 skimmed milk below a certain standard, and enacts that whoever 

 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished by the 

 penalties provided in the Public Statutes, chapter 57, section 5. 

 Heldj on a complaint made under the Statute of 1885, chapter 

 352, section 8, for an offence committed after the Statute of 1886, 

 chapter 318, section 2, took effect, that, even if the last-named 

 statute repealed by implication the Public Statutes, chapter 57, 

 section 5, the complaint could be maintained. (Commonwealth v. 

 Kendall, 144 Mass. 357.) 



Placing was upon the top of the cork in a bottle containing a 

 portion reserved from a sample of milk taken for analysis, and not 

 extending the wax over the mouth of the bottle and thus rendering 

 the bottle air tight, is not a sufficient compliance with the require- 

 ment of the Statute of 1884, chapter 310, section 4, that such 

 reserved portion shall be "sealed." (Commonwealth v. Lock- 

 hardt, 144 Mass, 132.) 



An indictment on the Statute of 1886, chapter 318, section 2, 

 alleging that the defendant had in his " possession milk to which 

 a certain foreign substance had been added, to wit, anuatto color- 

 ing matter," with intent unlawfully to sell the same, is sufficient 

 without naming the quantity. Evidence offered at the trial of such 

 an indictment as to two samples of milk taken from the defend- 

 ant's possession at substantially the same time is competent, and 

 the government cannot be required at the same time of the offer, if 

 ever, to elect which sample it will rely on. The addition of the 

 annatto coloring matter, whether injurious to health or not, is pun- 

 ishable under the statute. Evidence that the " milk was of low 

 grade " is competent, although it may tend to prove another 

 offence. (Commonwealth v. Schaffner, 146 Mass. 512.) 



An averment in a complaint under the milk acts, that the 

 defendants were " partners," is mere surplusage, and need not be 

 proved. On such a complaint, evidence that the defendant was 

 on a wagon with a license number on it, and containing milk cans, 

 from one of which was taken adulterated milk, is competent on the 

 issue that he was in possession of the milk to sell it. (Common- 

 wealth V. Rowell, 146 Mass. 128.) 



