Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports Volume 13

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports Volume 13

By (author) 

List price: US$22.39

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1911 edition. Excerpt: ...on a different line, as suggested by the court, than that offered. An expert is a person that possesses peculiar skill and knowledge upon the subject-matter that he is required to give an opinion upon: State v. Phair, 48 Vt. 366. An indictment founded on a statute must set forth the charge in those words of the statute which described the offense: Hamilton v. Com., 3 P. & W. 142. What Simmers bought was not for food and no other witness is produced to show that he or she ever bought any of it for food purposes. There is no proof that it was sold as an imitation of butter, and Julius Kolb, George Kolb and Philip Kolb, the defendants, positively swear that they never sold anything within the past two years as an imitation of butter and nobody is produced to rebut that testimony. There is a fatal variance between the averment in the indictment and the proof, in that the indictment charges the article was sold as an article of food and there was no proof of such 347, (19U0.) Argument-Opinion of the Court. fact, therefore, there was no proof of a violation of the act of assembly and the conviction cannot be sustained: People v. Fulle, 12 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 196; Com. v. Schollenberger, 153 Pa. 625. A person cannot be convicted of violating the oleomargarine Act of May 21, 1885, P. L. 22, unless it affirmatively appears that he sold oleomargarine as an article of food. The Act of 1895, P. L. 317, provides in section 1 "that no person shall manufacture for sale, offer for sale or sell any article of food which is adulterated." The exact language of the statute must be used in charging an offense which is defined by statute: Updegraif v. Com., 6 S. & R. 5; Hamilton v. Com., 3 P. & W. 142. Distinct offenses committed at...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 272 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 14mm | 490g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236963105
  • 9781236963109