
    People, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ojeda, Defendant and Appellant.
    Appeal from the District Court of Mayagiiez in a Prosecution for an Offense against Public Health.
    No. 1278.
    Decided June 21, 1918.
    Nonsuit — Evidence—Waiver.—When a defendant presents his evidence after his motion for a nonsuit has been overruled this action is a waiver of his motion, the rule being the same in criminal and civil actions.
    Adulterated Milk — Evidence.—In this case the defendant made no objection to the testimony of the expert that the milk sold was adulterated, but only-denied that he sold it. As the evidence showed that the defendant was the owner of the shop from which the milk was sold, he was responsible according to the jurisprudence laid down in the case of People v. GcmUer, 20 P. E. E. 311.
    The facts are stated iii the opinion.
    
      Messrs. Feliú & Alemañy for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Salvador Mestre, fiscal, for the appellee.
   Me. Justice Wole

delivered the opinion of the court.

The first assignment of error is that the court should have granted the motion for a nonsuit. After the motion was overruled the defendant presented his evidence. This action was a waiver of the motion for a nonsuit. The rule is the same in criminal and civil actions.

Appellant maintains that there was no proof of adulteration, but lie admitted without objection the statement of the expert that the milk sold was adulterated, which statement the court had a right to believe.

The principal defence was that the defendant did not sell the milk. He maintained that he sold the milk to his son and that he was not responsible for what happened thereafter. But, although there was a conflict, sufficient proof existed that appellant was the owner of the shop from which the milk was sold and hence was responsible. People v. Gautier, 20 P. R. R. 311.

The judgment must be

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.  