Longbrake v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Longbrake v. State

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 757

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 5, 1924

DocketNo. 18746

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 757 (Longbrake v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Longbrake v. State, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 757 (Ohio 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

In this case an affidavit was filed with John S. Pettit, a justice of the peace for Logan county, charging that Longbrake sold and delivered to one Stewart a certain quantity of bottled soft drink, other than non-alcoholic fruit juice, known as strawberry pop, which had and contained saccharine. After hearing the evidence, the justice found the defendant guilty, who thereupon filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and the court sentenced him to pay a fine of $25 and costs. A bill of exceptions was prepared and approved, and filed, and the cause was thus taken to the Common Pleas, where the judgment was (affirmed. Thereupon, Llongbrake filed his petition in error in the Logan Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas.

Longbrake has a store at Lakeview, Ohio, and affiong other things sells pop. -Stewart, a state food inspector, called at the store, and purchased a bottle of pop. Stewart then took the bottle of pop to Columbus and submitted to to the state chemist, who examined it and found that it contained saccharine. Evidence was submitted at the trial that saccharine is harmless and not deleterious to health, if used in soft drinks. The prosecution founded on 1089-9 GC., which prohibit the use of saccharine in, soft drinks.

The question is made by Langbrake as to the constitutionality of 1089-9 GC. and that it contravenes, is repugnant to and is violative of Art. 14, in amendment of the U. S. Constitution and of the provisions of Sec, I, Art. 1, and Sec. 19, Art 1, of the Qhio, Constitution.

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

In this case an affidavit was filed with John S. Pettit, a justice of the peace for Logan county, charging that Longbrake sold and delivered to one Stewart a certain quantity of bottled soft drink, other than non-alcoholic fruit juice, known as strawberry pop, which had and contained saccharine. After hearing the evidence, the justice found the defendant guilty, who thereupon filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and the court sentenced him to pay a fine of $25 and costs. A bill of exceptions was prepared and approved, and filed, and the cause was thus taken to the Common Pleas, where the judgment was (affirmed. Thereupon, Llongbrake filed his petition in error in the Logan Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas.

Longbrake has a store at Lakeview, Ohio, and affiong other things sells pop. -Stewart, a state food inspector, called at the store, and purchased a bottle of pop. Stewart then took the bottle of pop to Columbus and submitted to to the state chemist, who examined it and found that it contained saccharine. Evidence was submitted at the trial that saccharine is harmless and not deleterious to health, if used in soft drinks. The prosecution founded on 1089-9 GC., which prohibit the use of saccharine in, soft drinks.

The question is made by Langbrake as to the constitutionality of 1089-9 GC. and that it contravenes, is repugnant to and is violative of Art. 14, in amendment of the U. S. Constitution and of the provisions of Sec, I, Art. 1, and Sec. 19, Art 1, of the Qhio, Constitution.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longbrake-v-state-ohio-1924.