154 Mich. 73 | Mich. | 1908
(after stating the facts). It is urged by the attorney general that the sale of this mixture is in
“ That it shall be unlawful for any person, dealer, firm, manufacturer or corporation to manufacture and sell, or offer for sale, any maple sugar, maple molasses or maple syrup that is in anywise adulterated with common sugar, beet sugar, glucose or any other foreign substance without distinctly marking, stamping or labeling the article or the package containing the same with the true and appropriate name of such article and the percentage in which common sugar, beet sugar, glucose or any other foreign substance enters into the composition of the same.”
It is urged by the complainant that the case falls within Act No. 193, Pub. Acts 1895, known as the “Pure Food Law,” and entitled:
“An act to prohibit and prevent adulteration, fraud and deception in the manufacture and sale of articles of food and drink.”
Section 1 (2 Comp. Laws, § 5010) of the act prohibits the sale or having in possession with intent to sell any article of food which is adulterated within the meaning of the act. Section 2 (2 Comp. Laws, § 5011) defines the term “food” to include all articles used for food or drink. Section 3 (2 Comp. Laws, § 5012) states what articles shall be deemed to be adulterated. The section closes with the following proviso:
“ Provided, further, That the provisions of this act shall not apply to mixtures or compounds recognized as ordinary articles or ingredients of articles of food, if each and every package sold or offered for sale bear the name and address of the manufacturer and be distinctly labeled under its own distinctive name, and in a manner so as to plainly and correctly show that it is a mixture or compound, and is not in violation with definitions fourth and seventh of this section.”
The court held that this syrup came within the pure food law (Act No. 193), and not under the act prohibiting the adulteration of maple sugar, etc., and that it came within the proviso above quoted.
Decree reversed, and bill dismissed, with costs of both courts.