
    Commonwealth v. Madden, Appellant.
    
      Oleomargarine — Practice, C. P. — Appeals.
    Judgment was entered against defendant by a magistrate for the penalty for a violation of the oleomargarine act of April 21, 1885, P. L. 22. Defendant obtained a rule to show cause why an appeal from the magistrate should not be allowed, averring that the oleomargarine was not sold as a,n article of food, and that it was sold as an original package imported from another state. The court discharged the rule without filing an opinion.
    
      Held, on an appeal and certiorari to the Supreme Court, that thejudg- . ment should be affirmed.
    Argued Jan. 16, 1893.
    Appeals, Nos. 430 and 431, Jan. T., 1892, by defendant, James J. Madden, from order of C. P. No 2, Phila. Co., Jan. T., 1892, No. 545, discharging rule to show cause why appeal from magistrate should not be allowed.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Steerett, Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell and Dean, JJ.
    Rule to show cause why appeal from magistrate should not be allowed.
    Prom the record it appeared that on Jan. 25, 1892, Samuel M. Clements, magistrate of court No. 9, Philadelphia, rendered judgment against defendant for a penalty of $100 and costs, for the “ offence of selling an imitation or adulteration of butter in violation of the Actof April 21,1885,” entitled “An Act for the protection of the public health, and to prevent adulteration of dairy products and fraud in the sale thereof.” On Jan. 30, 1892, the court granted a rule to show cause why an appeal should not be allowed. Defendant in the affidavit for the rule averred that the sale was of an original package of oleomargarine imported from another state, and that the package was not sold as an article of food. The court discharged the rule.
    January 30, 1893 :
    
      Error assigned was order discharging rule.
    
      Henry R. Edmunds, for appellant,
    cited, Com. v. Miller 181 Pa. 118; People v. Dold, 63 Hun, 583.
    
      Luther S. Kauffman and Charles E. Warwich, Wayne MacVeagh with them, for appellee,
    cited, Com. v. Reiser, 1 Adv. R. 165 [147 Pa. 342].
    
      Henry R. Edmunds, in reply,
    cited Com. v. Betts, 76 Pa. 465.
   Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.  