THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. 265 



it seems lie came to the conclusion that it was cows' milk which 

 had been watered by the addition of 15 per cent, of added water, 

 that from such circumstances, in view of the scientific evidence 

 in this case, that you ought to be satisfied beyond any reason- 

 able doubt that the fluid was cows' milk which had been watered 

 by the addition of additional water. Public officers in the 

 execution of a public duty are entitled to the presumption as 

 a presumption of law that they act in good faith and from 

 proper motives, in the absence of any evidence tending to show 

 otherwise; there is no direct evidence that the fluid which Dr. 

 White inspected and tested was skimmed milk, and I think I may 

 say that there is no evidence direct or circumstantial tending to 

 show that that fluid was chemically and skillfully compounded by a 

 skillful chemist; there is no evidence that the fluid was neither 

 cows' milk which had been watered nor cows' milk which had not 

 been watered ; after the remarks I have made here during the trial 

 it is hardly necessary to say to you that as to the second count of 

 the indictment and hence I have been particular in stating what 

 that count charges and what the sanitary code is that it was un- 

 necessary for the prosecution on the part of the people to show that 

 the defendant knew if this fluid was cows' milk that had been 

 watered that he knew it had been watered ; I suggest to you whether 

 you are not satisfied from the evidence in this case, this volume of 

 scientific evidence, and I may say some evidence statistical, that 

 the ordinance which should require the Board of Health to prove 

 affirmatively that the milk was watered, and to what amount, 

 amounted to but little. How could they prove it under ordinary cir- 

 cumstances ? Now, gentlemen, the general question, of course, is 

 under the second count of the indictment, and I will say a word 

 about the other count in a moment the general question for you to 

 determine is did the prisoner commit or did he not commit the 

 offense charged in that indictment ? I say but little about the evi- 

 dence, having seen with what attention you have listened to it, and 

 presuming that you can, with precisely as much intelligence as I 

 could, apply the evidence in this case, both scientific and the other 

 testimony, to the questions involved in the determination of this 

 general question of guilty or not guilty on the charge of the second 

 count. I believe there is hardly a man on the jury that does not 



