698 
session the milk from which the sample was taken, but the appellate 
court found no error in the exclusion of such evidence, saving : 
But under section 3 of tlie act of 1898^ the question is whether the sale was 
made 'of the article, which was in fact under the standard prescribed by the 
law. The party making the sale is bound at his peril to know what he is sell- 
ing, and, to keep within the law, he must know that the article complies with 
the standard of excellence and purity prescribed by the law. Unless this he so, 
it would be very difficult, if not impossible, ever to convict a party of a viola- 
tion of the law. And for the same reason the court below was right in refusing 
to allow the defendant to introduce evidence to show for what purpose he had 
kept the milk on hand — that being entirely immaterial, if he sold the milk 
that did not bear the test prescribed. 
The other questions decided by Weigand v. District of Columbia 
are not material for present purposes. 
The third case, District of Columbia v. Garrison. 0 decided May 23, 
1905, arose under the provisions of “An act relating to the adultera- 
tion of foods and drugs in the District of Columbia," approved Feb- 
ruary 17, 1898, * 6 and required the determination of the extent of the 
right of the inspectors in the service of the health department to 
purchase samples of food for analysis, under section 6 of the act, 
which is as follows: 
That every person offering for sale or delivering to any purchaser any drug 
or article of food included in the provisions of this act shall furnish to any 
analyst or other officer or agent of the health department, who shall apply to 
him for the purpose and shall tender him the value of the same, a sample 
sufficient for the purpose of analysis of any such drug or article of food 
which is in his possession. 
The defendant had declined to sell to an inspector one : half pint 
of milk upon the tender of the usual price therefor, 2 cents, but had 
offered to sell one entire pint for I cents, alleging that he sold milk 
only in the original packages in which he received it, that he had no 
package containing less than 1 pint.' and that if he sold a half-pint 
from such a package the remaining half pint would represent a loss 
to him, since his customers knew that he did not sell milk in quan- 
tities less than a pint, and that therefore he had no demand for half 
pints. The police court having sustained the position taken by the 
defendant, an appeal was taken on the recommendation of the health 
officer. It was apparent that if one dealer were permitted to refuse, 
on the grounds taken by the defendant hi this case, to sell less than 
a pint, another might fairly claim the right to refuse, on the same 
grounds, to sell less than a quart, and' so on; that if inspectors were 
required to accept and to bring to the laboratory samples as large as 
1 quart, or even as large as 1 pint, their return trips to the labora- 
tory from the field must be correspondingly more frequent and their 
° 25 Appeals, D. C., 563. 
6 30 Stats., 246. 
