Commonwealth v. Ellis

Citations

• 46 Pa. Super. 72
• 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 229

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Food law — Bad eggs — Sale of eggs — Act of March 11, 1909, P. L. IS — Custom—Constitutional law.</p> <p>1. A person may be convicted under the Act of March 11, 1909, P. L. 13, for selling “eggs that are unfit for food” by proof that he sold a quantity of eggs with an understanding with the purchaser that the latter might receive back a certain portion of the purchase money if some of the eggs proved bad, but without any obligation of the purchaser to return the bad eggs.</p> <p>2. If certain facts, which in law constitute a sale, are testified to by the defendant himself, the judge does not invade the province of the jury by instructing them that the transaction was a sale. For the province of the judge is not merely to counsel, but to instruct, and it is the duty of the jury to take his instructions as the best evidence of the law.</p> <p>Custom — Statute—Repugnancy.</p> <p>3. A custom or usage repugnant to the express provisions of a statute is void, and whenever there is a conflict between a custom or usage and a statutory regulation the statutory regulation must control.</p> <p>Public officers — Agent of pure food department — Authority—Act of March 11,1909, P. L. IS.</p> <p>4. An agent of the pure food department cannot abrogate the plain provisions of the Act of March 11, 1909, P. L. 13.</p> <p>Constitutional law — Title of act — Pure food law — Act of March 11, 1909, P. L. 13.</p> <p>5. The Act of March 11, 1909, P. L. 13, is sufficient in title and not unconstitutional.</p>