Commonwealth v. Butterfield

46 Pa. Super. 380, 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 281
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 17, 1911·No. Appeal, No. 109·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

The defendant was indicted for selling oleomargarine without a license, entered a plea of not guilty, and after a trial the jury rendered a verdict of guilty as indicted, and in connection therewith specially found the facts upon which the verdict was based. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the facts found were insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty, which motion the court overruled and sentenced the defendant upon the verdict, from which judgment we have this appeal.

It is conceded that the defendant had no license to sell oleomargarine, and the only question presented is whether the facts found by the jury were sufficient to sustain a finding that he had sold oleomargarine in the county of Chester. The special verdict establishes that the defendant is a resident of Pennsylvania and has a place of business in the borough of Spring City, Chester county. The special verdict also finds that the defendant had, at the borough of Spring City, in the county of Chester, solicited and obtained from various parties orders for oleomargarine in quantities ranging from five to ten pounds to each individual; that said orders were in writing, signed by the respective individuals, directed to the John F. Jelke Company, of Camden, New Jersey, and directing said company to ship to the person giving the order, in care of this defendant, the quantity of oleomargarine desired, at a [383] price stated per pound. If the taking and forwarding of these orders had been the only thing done by this defendant the contention of his counsel upon this appeal would be well founded. The verdict did not, however, stop there; it proceeds to find the following facts with regard to the manner in which this defendant carried on his business. “That after receiving said orders from each of the respective purchasers the said defendant collected from each of them at the time, the price of the oleomargarine, together with the additional sum of two cents per pound upon the respective quantities of oleomargarine ordered. That the price paid for the oleomargarine varied in accordance with the grade from eighteen to twenty-two cents per pound, and the respective persons ordering the same paid to the defendant said price and an additional two cents per pound. That after receiving said orders and the money therefor the defendant transmitted the orders and the money received from the respective purchasers, except the two cents a pound retained by him, to the John F. Jelke Co., at Camden, N. J. The two cents a pound was retained by the defendant to cover the freight or express charges and the cost of handling the said oleomargarine. That upon the receipt by them of the money and orders for the said oleomargarine the John F. Jelke Co. at their place of business in Camden, N. J., made up the orders in the quantities desired by purchasers and marked the respective packages with the names of the respective purchasers. The names of the purchasers were written upon the separate packages in lead pencil, together with a statement of the quantities of oleomargarine contained in the package. There were no other words written upon the said packages, but the word 'Oleomargarine’ was printed upon the wrapper of each of the respective packages. That the John F. Jelke Co. packed the oleomargarine which had been set apart and marked with the respective names of the purchasers in wooden boxes, each containing from sixty to eighty-five pounds of oleomargarine. That the box contained the orders of from six to [384] fifteen different persons separately wrapped and marked, and said wood box was then shipped by freight or express, addressed ‘To J. S. Butterfield, Spring City, Pa.’ . . . . That included in the said box and shipped with the said package of oleomargarine were small vials containing liquid coloring matter in number corresponding with the number of separate packages contained in each box. . . . That upon the receipt of said box and boxes at Spring City, Pa., the defendant, J. S. Butterfield, receipted for said oleomargarine to the railroad company or express company transporting the same and paid the freight or charges thereon. That thereafter the said oleomargarine contained in the said large box was delivered by a drayman to the photograph gallery of the defendant in Spring City, Pa.; the said drayman was hired by said defendant and paid by him for the hauling of the boxes from the freight or express office to the defendant’s place of business. That upon the receipt of said box containing the said oleomargarine, in quantity from sixty to eighty-five pounds, as stated, and in separate packages containing from ten to fifteen pounds in each package, marked with the respective names of the purchasers thereof, the defendant broke open the box containing said oleomargarine and the respective packages thereof were then, upon their calling for the same at his place of business, delivered to the respective persons whose names were written upon the respective wrappers as hereinbefore stated. This defendant also upon some occasions took packages addressed to persons in the vicinity of his place of business and carried them to the homes of said persons and there delivered them. That the vials of coloring matter, shipped with the boxes containing the oleomargarine, were wrapped together in a package sepárate from the oleomargarine, and the defendant upon receipt by him of the oleomargarine; and after breaking open the box containing the same, broke open the package containing the vials of coloring matter, and with each package of oleomargarine, delivered as above stated, delivered also one vial of liquid coloring matter.”

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

Commonwealth v. Butterfield, 46 Pa. Super. 380, 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 281 (Pa. Ct. App. 1911).

46 Pa. Super. 380 (Commonwealth v. Butterfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Holstine
19 A. 273 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1890)
Commonwealth v. Leslie
20 Pa. Super. 529 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Commonwealth v. Guja
28 Pa. Super. 58 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)
Commonwealth v. Hecirrionic
39 Pa. Super. 510 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1909)