City of Duluth v. City Market Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

City of Duluth v. City Market Co.

244 N.W. 552, 187 Minn. 149, 1932 Minn. LEXIS 981

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 14, 1932

DocketNos. 28,946, 28,947.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 N.W. 552 (City of Duluth v. City Market Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Duluth v. City Market Co., 244 N.W. 552, 187 Minn. 149, 1932 Minn. LEXIS 981 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Convicted under an ordinance of the city of Duluth of wilfully selling meat unfit for human consumption, defendant appeals from the judgment.

There is not enough of merit in the case to Avarrant much discussion. It may be, as appellant claims, that the prosecution Aims initiated by envious competitors. But that does not alter the fact that the record discloses sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. The meat in question was “stew meat,” a chopped combination of veal, mutton, and lamb. There is evidence that the sale upon which the conviction rests Avas of meat which had commenced to putrefy. The trial judge — there was no jury — Avas justified in concluding that the process had progressed so far that the meat was unfit for human consumption.

The motion for neAv trial presented no prejudicial error and nothing of neAvly discovered evidence to compel a new trial. Hence the *150 denial of the motion was a matter of discretion, in the exercise of which we are unable to find any abuse.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Convicted under an ordinance of the city of Duluth of wilfully selling meat unfit for human consumption, defendant appeals from the judgment.

There is not enough of merit in the case to Avarrant much discussion. It may be, as appellant claims, that the prosecution Aims initiated by envious competitors. But that does not alter the fact that the record discloses sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. The meat in question was “stew meat,” a chopped combination of veal, mutton, and lamb. There is evidence that the sale upon which the conviction rests Avas of meat which had commenced to putrefy. The trial judge — there was no jury — Avas justified in concluding that the process had progressed so far that the meat was unfit for human consumption.

The motion for neAv trial presented no prejudicial error and nothing of neAvly discovered evidence to compel a new trial. Hence the *150 denial of the motion was a matter of discretion, in the exercise of which we are unable to find any abuse.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 N.W. 552, 187 Minn. 149, 1932 Minn. LEXIS 981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-duluth-v-city-market-co-minn-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack