Commonwealth v. Mackey

<p>Appeal, No. 5, Oct. T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Blair Co., Oct. T., 1906, No. 23, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Commonwealth v. E. M. Mackey.</p> <p>Indictment for violating the pure food law.</p> <p>The defendant pleaded nollo contendere upon which judgment of sentence was passed.</p> <p>¡Errors assigned were as follows :</p> <p>1. Does the plea of nollo contendere entered by the defendant preclude him from taking an appeal ?■</p> <p>2. Is the selling and having for sale, adulterated candy, prohibited by the Act of June 27, 1895, P. L. 817 entitled, “ an act to provide against the adulteration of food, and providing for the enforcement thereof,” or any of its supplements, or is what the appellant charged with doing, anywhere made an offense by statute ?</p> <p>8. Does the title of the act of 1895 give any direct notice in immediate connection with the act itself, of the subject, so that a wholesale confectioner may know, or be put on inquiry as to its provisions and their effect ?</p> <p>4. Does the word “ food,” as it is used in the act of 1895, include candy upon which the indictment is based, and is not that indictment founded upon an artificial and arbitrary commission of a fictitious crime ?</p> <p>5. In a criminal prosecution under a penal statute, is the commission of an act described with sufficient clearness and accuracy, and is it specific enough in describing the substance with which the appellant is charged to bring the indictment within the pale, that the bill of rights, section 9, constitution of Pennsylvania, and the rules of criminal pleading require, when the word candy is used alone without designating the kind?</p> <p>6. Does the record of the alderman set out sufficient to enable the court of quarter sessions to determine whether he had jurisdiction to review that fact ?</p> <p>7. Is there a sufficient finding by the grand inquest, when they find, “ By having mixed therein and therewith and containing a certain added substance or ingredient poisonous in its nature or injurious to health, to wit: sulphites or a compound thereof, a more particular description of which is to this grand inquest at present unknown,” etc ?</p> <p>8. Is it in violation of section 15, article III, of the constitution of Pennsylvania, because diverting money from the state treasury without a specific appropriation ?</p> <p>9. Does it curtail the constitutional powers of the secretary of internal affairs in violation of article IV, section 19, of the constitution of Pennsylvania?</p> <p>10.. It is not in violation of section 19, article III, of the constitution of Pennsylvania, which prohibits the creation of any state office for the inspection of merchandise, manufacture or commodity, etc.</p>