State v. Rippeth

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Rippeth

71 Ohio St. (N.S.) 85

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 25, 1904

DocketNo. 8654

StatusPublished

This text of 71 Ohio St. (N.S.) 85 (State v. Rippeth) 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

State v. Rippeth, 71 Ohio St. (N.S.) 85 (Ohio 1904).

Pincite

Opinions

By the Court.

Section 4200-16, Revised Statutes, makes it a penal offense for any person to “sell or deliver” any oleomargarine which contains coloring matter. This is a police regulation imposing a penalty irrespective of criminal intent; and it contains no exception in favor of any person, nor as to whom the prohibited article may he sold or delivered, nor for what purpose. The dealer in the adulterated article has it in his possession for sale, and sells or delivers the same at his peril. He cannot shield himself by the plea of ignorance in regard to its character, nor by the plea that he made the sale for analysis [88]*88or for any other purpose. State v. Kelly, 54 Ohio St., 166; State v. Hutchinson, 56 Ohio St., 573.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed and judgment of the court of common pleas affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price and Summers.. JJ., concur.

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

By the Court.

Section 4200-16, Revised Statutes, makes it a penal offense for any person to “sell or deliver” any oleomargarine which contains coloring matter. This is a police regulation imposing a penalty irrespective of criminal intent; and it contains no exception in favor of any person, nor as to whom the prohibited article may he sold or delivered, nor for what purpose. The dealer in the adulterated article has it in his possession for sale, and sells or delivers the same at his peril. He cannot shield himself by the plea of ignorance in regard to its character, nor by the plea that he made the sale for analysis [88]*88or for any other purpose. State v. Kelly, 54 Ohio St., 166; State v. Hutchinson, 56 Ohio St., 573.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed and judgment of the court of common pleas affirmed.

Spear, C. J., Davis, Shauck, Price and Summers.. JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 Ohio St. (N.S.) 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rippeth-ohio-1904.