378 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. [Pub. Doc. 



first case ever tried under that particular clause of the anti- 

 color law. In one instance the defendant sought to clear 

 himself by the claim that he had disposed of the business 

 before the sample was taken, and the alleged purchaser was 

 one of his witnesses to confirm his evidence ; a complaint 

 against this purchaser was sworn out while the trial was in 

 progress. When the defendant was acquitted, the new pur- 

 chaser was arrested, arraigned, fined and paid $100 before 

 leaving the court room. 



In addition to the above imitation butter cases there have 

 been two perjury cases. In one the judge of the district 

 court believed perjury had been committed, and bound the 

 defendant over for the grand jury. When the oleo dealer 

 found that he had been indicted for both perjury and the 

 sale of imitation butter, he offered to plead guilty to the 

 oleomargarine case and pay what fine might be imposed, if 

 the perjury case would be filed ; to this proposition the dis- 

 trict attorney agreed. In the other case the defendant set 

 up an alibi, which did not convince the judge of the district 

 court, and conviction followed. The same tactics in the 

 superior court led to acquittal ; but the district attorney's 

 examination was very searching, and a stenographic report 

 of the evidence secured ; the statements were subsequently 

 investigated, and perjury proceedings instituted. 



This case was of more than ordinary interest in another 

 way. One of the most persistent places for violating the 

 law has been 122 South Main Street, Fall River, of which 

 George Morrow was for some time the proprietor. He was 

 convicted from time to time, until he deemed it prudent to 

 " sell out." But the law continued to be violated, and the 

 alleged purchaser of the store could not be found, while 

 Morrow or some of his relatives were the only ones our in- 

 spectors ever saw in charge of the store. During the past 

 summer 15 additional cases were brought for offences com- 

 mitted at this store, 4 against George Morrow, 2 against a 

 brother and 8 against two brothers-in-law. All were found 

 guilty in the lower court, and as one result a summons was 

 served on the general agent of the Bureau as defendant in a 

 civil suit for $5,000 damages, malicious prosecution being 

 alleged, according to the local papers. Morrow, in the 



