six pieces of margarine of one pound each, and each partly wrapped in paper, were piled upon each other in a pyramid in a shop window. One margarine label was put upon the whole heap (on the bottom pieces). An inspector bought the top piece. It was held that the six pieces formed one "parcel." 773 Where a statute required articles to be labeled, a dealer was held to commit no offense in taking small amounts from a properly labeled and ordinary sized package, put up for commercial use, and selling them without a label-e. g., a pound of lard from a fifty-pound pail. A New York statute required packages of renovated butter to be labeled. If it was put up, sold, or offered for sale in prints or rolls, then the prints or rolls had to be plainly labeled on the wrapper with the words "renovated butter." If packed in tubs, boxes, pails, or other kind of case or package, these words had to be printed thereon, so as to be plainly seen by the purchaser; and if the butter be exposed for sale uncovered, not in packages or cases, the label had to be attached to the mass of the butter so as to be easily seen by the purchaser. This statute was held to have for its object the prevention of imposition on the purchaser, and was not violated where the seller took a pound of butter from a tub in a cooler and wrapped it in a paper not branded, the tub being branded, and the purchaser knowing this before he paid for the butter, and there being no attempt to deceive such purchaser.5 Under the food law of Nebraska the word "package" does not apply to a ham or side of bacon whose form, size and weights are determined by the size, weight and condition of the slaughtered animal; but it does apply to articles of food that are packed, bound, or put together in sizes determined by the manufacturer and intended to pass as weighing one pound or more. 3 Parkinson v. McNair, 69 J. P. 399, 93 L. T. 553, 21 Cox C. C. 42, 3 L. G. R. 982. See also Wheat v. Brown [1892], 1 Q. B. 418, 56 J. P. 153, 61 L. J. M. C. 94, 66 L. T. 464, 40 W. R. 462. 4 State v. Neslund, 141 Iowa 461, 120 N. W. 107. 8 People v. Mack, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 474, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1004. 6 State v. Swift & Co., 84 Neb. 244, 120 N. W. 1127. § 549. Wrapper, Marking. An English statute required the seller of margarine by retail, unless in a package duly branded or durably marked, to deliver it to the purchaser in a paper wrapper on which must be printed in capital letters the word "margarine." Under this statute the question has arisen as to whether the wrapper referred to must be the outside wrapper or not. In one case the margarine was sold in wrappers duly marked "margarine," but before delivery to the purchaser a second wrapper was put on which concealed the first one. This was held to be no infringement of this statute. But in a later case, although the point did not actually arise in the case, the court expressed a strong opinion that it is the outside wrapper that should be marked.2 In this case the word "wrapper" was given a very wide meaning under this statute. There a pound of margarine was sold in a cardboard box, to which a folded paper (containing an advertisement of margarine) was attached by a paper band. The word "margarine" in letters of the required size was printed partly on the box, partly on the paper, and partly on the band. The court considered that the box, paper and band together constituted a wrapper within the meaning of the statute, and that the box was not a "package" within the meaning of that word as used, to the effect that "every package, whether open or closed, and containing margarine.'' § 550. Notice on Label Must Be Clear and Truthful. An English statute provides that "No person shall sell to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance and quality of the article demanded by such purchaser." Certain exceptions follow this quotation not here necessary to quote. This statute requires, in order to incur its penalty, that the sale shall 1 World's Tea Co. v. Gardner, 59 J. P. 358. 2 Toler v. Bischop, 60 J. P. 9, 65 L. J. M. C. 4, 75 L. T. 403, 18 3 Toler v. Bischop, supra. be "to the prejudice of the purchaser," and the decisions are to the effect that if the purchaser has notice just what is the composition of the article of food or the drug at the time he purchases it, there is no sale to his prejudice. In such an instance he buys with his eyes open, with knowledge of what he is buying, and, therefore, there is no sale to his prejudice. Of course, the notice must be clear and unequivocal. Some cases illustrate this statement. Thus a purchaser, on entering a shop and asking for some cheese, was supplied with a mixture which was compounded of skimmed milk and beef fat, the bulk of the butter fat which is contained in cheese made from "whole" milk having been abstracted. Attached to the bulk of the substance from which the purchaser's portion was taken was a label containing the words "Vallefield Finest Oleine Cheese," the words "Finest Oleine" being in smaller type than the others. No notice of the admixture by a label on or with the article was given to the purchaser, so as to give the seller a defense given by statute where, at the time of delivering the article of food, he supplied to the person receiving it a notice, by label distinctly or legibly written or printed on or with the article, to the effect that it was mixed. The purchaser did not notice the word "Oleine" on the label, and said that if he had he would not have known what it meant. It was held that the vendor had sold the article of food to the prejudice of the purchaser, and had therefore violated the statute.3 In another instance an in 2 The decisions on this subject have been reviewed on this point in Section 552 and are as follows: Sandys v. Small, 3 Q. B. Div. 449, 42 J. P. 550, 47 L. J. M. C. 115, 39 L. T. 118, 26 W. R. 814; Higgins V. Hall, 51 J. P. 293; Gage v. Elsey, 10 Q. B. Div. 518, 47 J. P. 391, 52 L. J. M. C. 44, 48 L. T. 226, 31 W. R. 501; Dawes v. Wilkinson [1907], 1 K. B. 278, 71 J. P. 23, 76 L. J. K. B. 182, 96 L. T. 26, 23 T. L. R. 34, 21 Cox C. C. 340, 5 L. G. R. 1; Morris v. Johnson, 54 J. P. 612; Morris v. Askew, 57 J. P. 724; Pearks, Gunston & Tee v. Ward [1902], 2 K. B. 1, 66 J. P. 774, 71 L. J. K. B. 656, 87 L. T. 51; Pearks, Gunston & Tee v. Houghton [1902], 1 K. B. 889, 66 J. P. 422, 71 L. J. K. B. 385; 86 L. T. 325, 50 W. R. 605; Hayes v. Rule, 87 L. T. 133, 18 T. L. R. 535. 8 Collett v. Walker, 59 J. P. 600, 64 L. J. M. C. 267. spector asked for coffee and was given a mixture containing 74 percent of chicory in a wrapper labeled "Coffee Mixture," with the words "Sold as a mixture of coffee and chicory" in very small print. It was held that the words "Coffee Mixture" would not necessarily lead a purchaser to suspect adulteration, and therefore the vendor was rightfully convicted.* So where a purchaser asked for "sweet milk," and was given. a mixture of sweet milk and skim milk with 2.63 percent of fat, contained in a can embossed with the words “not guaranteed 3 percent," the court held that he had not got what he asked for, and that the vendor was not protected by the words on the can. Likewise, where the purchaser asked for a bottle of brandy and was given one labeled "Old Brandy, Trioche & Co., Cognac," and containing 65 percent of spirits other than brandy, it was held that the statute had been violated. It is not permissible to sell an imitation under the distinctive name of another food, nor to label or brand an article of food so as to falsely indicate that it contains certain ingredients in certain proportions. 7 § 551. Mixture-Sufficiency of Label on Can of Condensed Milk. A customer purchased at a milk dealer's shop a tin of condensed milk for 41⁄2 pence. At the time of the purchase the attention of the purchaser was not called to any label on the can or tin, but he saw on it a label with "Condensed Milk, Swiss Dairy Brand," in large letters, and in smaller type on the back of the tin, "Swiss Dairy Brand. This tin contains skimmed milk prepared with the finest sugar. It will be found cheaper than ordinary fresh milk and useful for all household purposes. The Condensed Milk Company of Ireland (Limited), Limerick." It was shown that 93 percent of the butter fat had been abstracted from the milk, and that 4 Star Tea Co. v. Neale, 73 J. P. 511, 8 L. G. R. 5. 5 Souter V. Lean, 6 Fraser (J. C.) 20, 4 Adam 280. 6 Wilson v. McPhee, 68 J. P. 175, 6 Fraser (J. C.), 10, 4 Adam 310, 41 Sc. L. R. 195. 7 People v. Luke, 122 N. Y. App. Div. 64, 106 N. Y. Supp. 621. the material was injuriously affected thereby. It was held that the label was a sufficient disclosure that the milk had been skimmed before the sale, and that it was not necessary to especially call the purchaser's attention thereto.1 In another case one P. was charged with selling condensed milk from which 80 percent of fat had been abstracted without disclosing the alteration. The purchaser went into the shop and asked for a can of condensed milk. He was told that there were several sorts of condensed milk at different prices, and that some of them were skimmed milk. He decided to take a can at 311⁄2 pence. The can was handed to him and he duly declared that he had bought it for analysis, and divided the milk into three parts, as the statute in case of an analysis required. The owner of the shop then came forward and told him the article supplied was condensed skimmed milk, and drew his attention to the label on the back of the can, which contained (among others) the following words: "Calf Brand. This tin contains skimmed milk, with nothing added but the finest sugar. The label on the front of the can described the article as "Condensed Milk (calf brand)." The justices of the peace trying the case found as a fact that the label was not, either by its position of conspicuousness, and especially having regard to the fact that the article was described in the main part of the label as "condensed milk,” and not as "condensed skimmed milk," a label distinctly printed with the article. It was held that the justices were wrong in convicting the defendant vendor, and that the statute requiring articles sold to be labeled so as to show the contents of the article had been sufficiently complied with.2 On a demand for purchase of condensed milk, a label affixed round a tin or can of condensed milk, having printed thereon (inter alia) in red letters the words, "This tin contains skimmed milk," whereas the tin, in fact, contained separated milk, from which 97 percent of the original fat had been abstracted, while it was proved as a fact that no more than 63 percent of the original fat could be abstracted by the process 1 Jones v. Davies, 57 J. P. 808, 2 Platt v. Tyler. 58 J. P. 71. 69 L. T. 497, 9 T. L. R. 492. |