
    PEOPLE v. McDERMOTT DAIRY CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    November 19, 1914.)
    Food (§ 16) — Adultebation—Penalties—Evidence—Sufficiency.
    A judgment for a penalty for a violation of the Agricultural Law (Con-sol. Laws, c. 1) in exposing adulterated milk for sale cannot be upheld, where the adulteration was not shown by the preponderance of the evidence.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Food, Cent. Dig. § 16; Dec. Dig. § 16.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District. Action by the People against the Metier mo tt Dairy Company for a penalty for violation of the Agricultural Law (Consol. Laws, c. 1) in exposing for sale adulterated milk. From a judgment for the People,defendant appeals.
    Reversed, and Complaint dismissed.
    Argued October term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and COHALAN, JJ.
    J. Power Donellan, of New York City, for appellant.
    James A. Parsons, of Albany (Robert P. Beyer, of New York City, of counsel), for the People.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

This action was brought to recover a penalty incurred for an alleged violation of section 52 of the Agricultural Law for exposing for sale adulterated milk. We are satisfied, from reading-the examination and cross-examination of the chemist called by the plaintiff, that an adulteration (so slight, by the way, as to be almost negligible) was not shown by a preponderance of evidence.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed.  