No. 4.] REPORT OF DAIRY BUREAU. 283 



break out, when he was met by a pal, and the pair rode 

 hastily with one change of horses to Rhode Island, not, how- 

 ever, until the lockup keeper had implanted a bullet in his 

 thigh. 



This illustrates some of the difficulties in securing a big 

 statute record. Itinerant peddlers retailing about the State 

 without any particular route, never more than a half day in 

 a place, are hard to get evidence against, and, having secured 

 it, and a warrant, they are hard to re-locate and arrest. An 

 agent working on such a case cannot take many samples or 

 inspect many places of business. 



. Another reason for the diminution in the number of cases 

 in court is an increased conservatism on our part in multi- 

 plying cases, as we find much hesitancy among judges of the 

 district courts to entertain more than one complaint based on 

 one transaction. The first case that we had this year was 

 where (1) a man had sold an imitation of yellow butter; (2) 

 had sold it as butter; (3) had sold it without the proper 

 marks on the tub; (4) had sold it labelled "creamery;" 

 and (5) sold it without the distinctive marks and signs 

 required on the wagon, — a violation of five laws of the 

 State, but only one complaint was made. In nearly every 

 case that we have had this year three or four laws have been 

 violated. 



During the past year we have changed our policy relative 

 to the statute under which we have brought cases. Hereto- 

 fore, recognizing that the sale of oleomargarine as butter 

 and when butter was called for was an unquestioned moral 

 offence, as well as a statutory one, we preferred to bring 

 cases under that law (section 2, chapter 280, Acts of 1894) 

 when possible, feeling that we might appeal more strongly to 

 the court than in a case for selling (or having in possession 

 with intent to sell) an imitation of yellow butter. But ex- 

 perience showed us that as a practical matter we were in 

 error. In the former class of cases we had more to prove. 

 It was not only necessary to show that there had been a sale 

 of an imitation of yellow butter, but it was necessary to prove 

 beyond a reasonable doubt that it was sold in response to a 

 call for pure butter. Not infrequently the defendant would 

 attempt to save himself a fine either by contradicting our 



