Commonwealth v. Hufnal

Citations

• 4 Pa. Super. 301
• 1897 Pa. Super. LEXIS 122

Syllabus

<p>Statutes — Canons of construction.</p> <p>In construing legislative language it must be received, not necessarily according to its etymological meaning, but according to its popular acceptation, and especially in the sense in which the legislature is accustomed to use the same words.</p> <p>It is the duty of the courts so to construe statutes as to meet the mischief and to advance the remedy and not to violate fundamental principles, to bring, sense out of the words used and not to bring a sense into them, to give words a reasonable construction.</p> <p>Criminal law — Sale of separator skimmed milk — Pure Food Act.</p> <p>“ Plain skimmed milk” is a well known article of food where an approximately certain result as to residuary products of butter fats is attained by an equally well known manual method of skimming; “ separator skimmed milk ” is a distinctly different result reached by a distinctly different mechanical method whereby the maximum elimination of the butter fats is much greater.</p> <p>To sell “separator skimmed milk” as skimmed milk is an indictable offense under the Act of June 26, 1895, P. L. 317.</p> <p>Evidence — Expert testimony when inadmissible.</p> <p>Where the circumstances can be fully and adequately described to the jury, and are such that their bearing on the issue can be estimated by all men without special knowledge or training, opinions of witnesses expert or nonexpert are not admissible.</p> <p>Words and phrases — Use of words — Skimmed milk.</p> <p>The sense given to particular words by great lexicographers is always entitled to weight, yet where a word is general and common, due regard must be had to the circumstances; the term, “skimmed milk” is not a technical one, and must be presumed to have been used in its known and common sense and jurors are as competent as experts to determine its signification.</p>