In Re Reineger

In Re Application of Reineger

Good Law
184 Cal. 97·1920 Cal. LEXIS 302·193 P. 81
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 13, 1920Crim. No. 2263.California2,242 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

The petitioner, being imprisoned on the charge of violating the act of 1919 (Stats. 1919, p. 89), regulating the sale of substances designated therein as “imitation milk,” seeks his discharge upon a writ of habeas corpus. He was arrested upon a warrant issued upon a complaint filed in the police court of San Francisco.

The complaint alleges that “the crime of misdemeanor, to wit, selling and offering for sale imitation milk, without first obtaining a license therefor, was committed by E’. B. Reineger, who did then and there willfully and unlawfully engage in the business of selling, dealing in and furnishing imitation milk, namely, a compound composed of evaporated skim milk and seven and eight-tenths per cent of edible vegetable fat, without any other ingredient or ingredients, without first having applied for and obtained a license so to do, and did unlawfully sell, other than for cooking purposes, at one time, and in the same transaction, sixty cans of such imitation milk, each can containing one pound avoirdupois, which said imitation milk was not of a separate and distinct character not resembling milk or condensed or evaporated milk, nor colored nor containing any color or…

Dissenting Opinion

Sloane, J.

I dissent from that portion of the main opinion construing section 2 of the act. In my judgment it was clearly the intention of the legislature to prohibit the sale of imitation milk. I concur in the rest of the opinion.

Wilbur, J., concurred.

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.