Wright v. State

Citations

• 88 Md. 436
• 41 A. 795
• 1898 Md. LEXIS 209

Syllabus

<p>Constitutional Law — Prohibition of Sale of Oleomargarine — Police Power — Secondary Evidence — Indictment.</p> <p>Code, Art. 27, secs. 88, etc., prohibit the manufacture or sale of any article made in imitation of butter and not made from pure milk or cream. Defendant, a resident of this State, was indicted for selling one pound of oleomargarine, being an article in imitation of butter, not made from pure milk or cream. Upon demurrer to the indictment, Held, that the statute, in so far as it prohibits the sale or manufacture of oleomargarine in this State is a valid exercise of the police power designed to protect the health of the community, and since it was not shown or averred that the oleomargarine sold by the defendant was an article of commerce from another State, sold by him in the original package, the demurrer to the indictment was properly overruled..</p> <p>A statute prohibiting the sale, of oleomargarine by any person is not unconstitutional as abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizen, or as depriving him of his property, or as restricting the right to pursue a trade, or as creating a monopoly.</p> <p>When an original paper is proved to have been thrown away as useless,, secondary evidence of its contents is admissible without direct proof that search had been made for it.</p> <p>An indictment charging that the traverser was “ late of A. County aforesaid,” sufficiently shows that he is a resident of the State and county which was set forth in the venue.</p>