AEGUMENT OF THE COUNSELLOR THE 

 PROSECUTION. 



Closing argument of W. P. PRENTICE, Esq., in the case of the PEOPLE vs. 

 SCHRUMPF. tried upon an indictment for the adulteration of milk, in 

 the Court of General Sessions in New York, December 28, 1876, Judge 

 SUTHERLAND presiding. 



May it please the Court and gentlemen of the jury : When 

 we come, at this stage of the proceedings, to take np the points 

 of interest and discussion, which have detained you so long, the 

 first feeling that I have in my mind is one somewhat of com- 

 miseration for you, that you have suffered so much, though I be- 

 lieve it to be in a good cause, and then, again, of admiration for 

 your patience, that you have so pleasantly indulged the learned 

 gentlemen who represent the defence, in all their efforts to bring 

 before you the requisite facts to determine this, which for them 

 and their trade shall be the decisive case, as they have promised. 

 Now I confess that I have entered upon the discussion with less 



NOTE. The indictment against the prisoner, Daniel Schrumpf, was of two 

 counts. The first count charged him with knowledge, u knowingly offering 

 and having for sale,' 1 etc., etc. The second count was drawn under the ordi- 

 nance quoted in the argument. 



About thirty other milk dealers, under like indictments, most of them mem- 

 bers of " The Milk Dealers' Association," were brought to trial at the Decem- 

 ber term of the court, 1876, and this case was selected as the first to be tried. 

 It was on trial from December 18 to December 28, 1876, adjournment being 

 had over Saturday and Christmas day Dec. 23 and 25 and in this interval the 

 examination of the Mulford herd of cows was made by Doctors Waller and 

 O'Connor, who testified, on the 27th, to the facts set out in the report in 

 the appendix. 



The prisoner was found guilty 



