Powell v. State

<bold>1. — Indictment — Sufficient — Substitute Word.</bold> Where a word not in the statute is substituted for one that is, the indictment is sufficient if the word, thus substituted, is equivalent to the word used in the statute, or is of a more extensive signification than the statutory word and includes it. <bold>2. — Evidence — Prima Facie Case — Established.</bold> Testimony of chemist that meat examined, and shown to have been sold by appellant, contained sulphite in a substantial quantity, established a prima facie case for the state. <bold>3. — Bill of Exceptions — Evidence Excluded — Hearsay — Not</bold> <bold>Error.</bold> Where the bill of exceptions shows that the testimony excluded was hearsay error is not shown because the excluded testimony was not admissible. <center> ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.</center><bold>4. — Sulphite — Added — Meat.</bold> If meat contains sulphite, then sulphite has been added to the meat. <bold>5. — Sulphite — Meat Containing — Selling — Proof of</bold> <bold>Knowledge — Unnecessary.</bold> Under the express provisions of Art. 719 P. C., it was not necessary for the state to prove that the act of selling food to which sulphite has been added was knowingly done.<page_number>Page 317</page_number> <bold>6. — Sulphite — Lack of Knowledge — Defense.</bold> Lack of knowledge that meat sold contained sulphite is a defense and when raised by the evidence should be submitted to the jury.