95 Vt. 375 | Vt. | 1921
The respondent stands convicted of selling and furnishing milk diluted with W’ater in violation of' G-. L. 5907.
One Murray carried the respondent’s milk, milk that belonged to one Bisson, and his own, to the creamery each morning. Murray was hired by the respondent to carry the latter’s milk to the creamery. The respondent claims that if his milk was diluted when delivered to the creamery it was diluted by Murray after it left respondent’s farm.
The witness had already testified to facts from which no other understanding was dedueible. Therefore, reversible error is not shown. State v. Williams, 94 Vt. 423, 111 Atl. 701. This answer was harmless, too, because the fact that Murray went to see Bisson at Allen’s request was undisputed. State v. Warner, supra.
This statute was enacted, manifestly, as a means of protecting the public against fraud and imposition of vendors of inferior
In the instant case the sale of the milk was not consummated until it was delivered' at the creamery; down to that moment it belonged to the respondent, was in his custody, in the eye of the law, and he was responsible for its condition. If it was diluted when delivered at the creamery it is immaterial whether it was diluted by the respondent, or the person who did the milking, or the person who carried it to the creamery.
Other exceptions were' taken, but, as the questions raised by them are not likely to arise on'a retrial, they are not considered.
Judgment and sentence reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.