People v. Secor

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Secor

113 N.Y.S. 487

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 113 N.Y.S. 487 (People v. Secor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Secor, 113 N.Y.S. 487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

HENDRICK, J.

It is conceded that the defendant, a boarding house keeper, purchased the oleomargarine in good faith, believing it to be butter. She had no knowledge or information, nor was there any circumstance which would lead her to believe that the substance was not butter.- Indeed, it was necessary to have a chemical analysis to determine that it was oleomargarine colored to imitate butter. It was conceded on the trial that the defendant was entirely innocent-of intent to violate the statute, and a willful violation thereof is nbt ascribed to her. Under the circumstances I think the maximum penalty should not have been imposed. A penalty of $50 would have been adequate.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduce the judgment to $50, in which event the judgment, as modified, is affirmed, but without costs to either party in this court. All concur.

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

HENDRICK, J.

It is conceded that the defendant, a boarding house keeper, purchased the oleomargarine in good faith, believing it to be butter. She had no knowledge or information, nor was there any circumstance which would lead her to believe that the substance was not butter.- Indeed, it was necessary to have a chemical analysis to determine that it was oleomargarine colored to imitate butter. It was conceded on the trial that the defendant was entirely innocent-of intent to violate the statute, and a willful violation thereof is nbt ascribed to her. Under the circumstances I think the maximum penalty should not have been imposed. A penalty of $50 would have been adequate.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduce the judgment to $50, in which event the judgment, as modified, is affirmed, but without costs to either party in this court. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.Y.S. 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-secor-nyappterm-1908.