People v. Linden Farms Milk & Cream Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Linden Farms Milk & Cream Co.

244 A.D. 830

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D. 830 (People v. Linden Farms Milk & Cream Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Linden Farms Milk & Cream Co., 244 A.D. 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction by a city magistrate, sitting as a Court of Special Sessions, reversed on the law, the information dismissed and the fine imposed directed to be remitted. Section 137 of the Sanitary Code

* did not authorize the procedure followed by the health inspector. There is no proof that the milk upon which the “ embargo ” was placed was unfit for use as human food. Treating the embargo as an order, a violation of it does not coDstitute a violation of section 137 because of the provisions of section 184 of the Sanitary Code, since the making of such an order is not in conformity with the authority conferred by section 137. The latter section prescribes what is to be done in the event a commodity is found to be unfit. The article is to be condemned and denatured or caused to be removed for the purposes of destruction. The inspector is authorized to direct the person having the article to remove the same to a place designated so that it may be destroyed. There is no authorization in that section for the making of an order such as was made in the form of an embargo. The only offense appearing in this record is one of mislabeling, growing out of a pasteurizing of the milk forty minutes too early to permit of the use of the label found on the bottles by the inspector. The information charges no violation in the latter respect. One may not be charged and convicted of a violation of one section of a statute on evidence establishing a violation of another section of a statute, the violation of which is not charged in the information. The order or embargo, the violation of which is the real basis of the conviction herein was, therefore, not a valid order in relation to the provisions of section 137 of the Sanitary Code, and it is that section that the defendant was improperly charged with and convicted of violating. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Tompkins and Johnston, JJ., concur.

See New York Code of Ordinances, chap. 20.— [Rep.

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

Judgment of conviction by a city magistrate, sitting as a Court of Special Sessions, reversed on the law, the information dismissed and the fine imposed directed to be remitted. Section 137 of the Sanitary Code

* did not authorize the procedure followed by the health inspector. There is no proof that the milk upon which the “ embargo ” was placed was unfit for use as human food. Treating the embargo as an order, a violation of it does not coDstitute a violation of section 137 because of the provisions of section 184 of the Sanitary Code, since the making of such an order is not in conformity with the authority conferred by section 137. The latter section prescribes what is to be done in the event a commodity is found to be unfit. The article is to be condemned and denatured or caused to be removed for the purposes of destruction. The inspector is authorized to direct the person having the article to remove the same to a place designated so that it may be destroyed. There is no authorization in that section for the making of an order such as was made in the form of an embargo. The only offense appearing in this record is one of mislabeling, growing out of a pasteurizing of the milk forty minutes too early to permit of the use of the label found on the bottles by the inspector. The information charges no violation in the latter respect. One may not be charged and convicted of a violation of one section of a statute on evidence establishing a violation of another section of a statute, the violation of which is not charged in the information. The order or embargo, the violation of which is the real basis of the conviction herein was, therefore, not a valid order in relation to the provisions of section 137 of the Sanitary Code, and it is that section that the defendant was improperly charged with and convicted of violating. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Tompkins and Johnston, JJ., concur.

See New York Code of Ordinances, chap. 20.— [Rep.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D. 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-linden-farms-milk-cream-co-nyappdiv-1935.