Opinion
Argued May 6, 1907
Decided May 21, 1907
William S. Jackson, Attorney-General ( Martin F. Dillon of counsel), for appellant.
Edward W. Cregg for respondents.
Judgment affirmed, with costs, upon the ground that while an oral warning by the seller that the butter is renovated butter is no excuse for a failure to comply with the statute, still, in view of the concession that the tub was marked according to the statute, the charge of the judge was wholly immaterial; no opinion.
Concur: GRAY, O'BRIEN, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT and CHASE, JJ. Absent: CULLEN, Ch. J.