Ko. 4.] liEPORT OF DAIRY BUREAU. 381 



first, that the section of the law referred to was unqualifiedly 

 repealed, and, second, if it was not, it did not apply to a 

 law passed seven years after prohibiting traffic in an imita- 

 tion product, because of its counterfeit nature, but where 

 there was no allegation of any adulteration. 



The supreme court said: "We do not see any sufficient 

 ground for interpreting either section 4 as purporting to 

 embrace samples that should be taken under future legisla- 

 tion or the act of 1891 as impliedly adopting section 4 of the 

 act of 1884." 



An olvjection was made to our form of complaint, on the 

 ground that it did not contain the official title of the com- 

 plainant, the general agent of the Dairy Bureau ; it was also 

 argued that inspectors of milk are the only officers author- 

 ized to make complaints. To this argument the supreme 

 court said it is a sufficient answer that the same authority is 

 plainly given to the representative of the Dairy Bureau. 

 "As to the form of the complaint, if we should assume, for 

 the purposes of decision, that only the persons named have 

 authority to make complaints under the act, no doubt the 

 office of the complainant should be alleged, but the defect at 

 most is formal. Probably it would not be sufficient ground 

 for a motion to quash. But the short answer to the whole 

 matter is that the statute does not prohibit any person from 

 making a complaint." 



A third attack was the charge that our standard form of 

 complaint " does not allege that the substance was not in a 

 separate and distinct form, and in such manner as will advise 

 the consumer of its real character." The court says : " This 

 means that the complaint should have negatived the proviso 

 that the act shall not be taken to prohibit the sale of oleo- 

 margarine in a separate and distinct form, etc., 'free from 

 coloration or ingredient that causes it to look like butter.' 

 The motion disregards these last words. The complaint 

 alleges that the oleomargarine was in imitation of yellow 

 butter produced from unadulterated milk or cream, and thus 

 sufficiently shows that the proviso does not apply. The 

 defendant had no right to keep such a substance for sale in 

 any form or manner. Probably in any case it was unneces- 

 sary to negative the proviso." 



