Commonwealth v. Holt

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Holt

14 N.E. 930, 146 Mass. 38, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 190

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 7, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 14 N.E. 930 (Commonwealth v. Holt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Holt, 14 N.E. 930, 146 Mass. 38, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 190 (Mass. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Field, J.

The St. of 1886, c. 318, § 2, prohibits, under a penalty, the sale of milk which is not of good standard quality, and the alleged contract was immaterial. Indeed, the contract would be held to mean that the milk delivered should be such as could lawfully be bought and sold. The testimony of the milk inspector to the results of the analysis was properly received in [40]*40evidence. The milk was delivered to the inspector for analysis by the purchaser of the milk, and was not taken from the possession of the defendant, pursuant to the St. of 1886, c. 318, § 1.

In cases where the milk analyzed has not been taken under the provisions of the statute, the competency of evidence is to be determined by the common law, and the testimony of any person who had sufficient skill to analyze milk, and who had analyzed some of the milk which was shown to have been sold by the defendant, .was admissible. Commonwealth v. Spear, 143 Mass. 172. Exceptions overruled.

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

Field, J.

The St. of 1886, c. 318, § 2, prohibits, under a penalty, the sale of milk which is not of good standard quality, and the alleged contract was immaterial. Indeed, the contract would be held to mean that the milk delivered should be such as could lawfully be bought and sold. The testimony of the milk inspector to the results of the analysis was properly received in [40]*40evidence. The milk was delivered to the inspector for analysis by the purchaser of the milk, and was not taken from the possession of the defendant, pursuant to the St. of 1886, c. 318, § 1.

In cases where the milk analyzed has not been taken under the provisions of the statute, the competency of evidence is to be determined by the common law, and the testimony of any person who had sufficient skill to analyze milk, and who had analyzed some of the milk which was shown to have been sold by the defendant, .was admissible. Commonwealth v. Spear, 143 Mass. 172. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.E. 930, 146 Mass. 38, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-holt-mass-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack