RULING CASE LAW

VOLUME XXVIII

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

I. INTRODUCTORY

II. PUBLIC OFFICIALS, INSPECTION AND FEES

III. PARTICULAR LEGISLATION

IV. VIOLATION OF STATUTE OR ORDINANCE AS AN OFFENSE

I. Introductory

1. Constitutionality and Construction of Regulatory Statutes Generally, 2. Purpose of Acts

3. Federal and State Powers

4. Municipal Powers

II. Public Officials, Inspection and Fees

5. State Legislation

6. Municipal Powers

7. Inspection and Sealing

8. Certificate or Sworn Statement as Evidence

9. Fees

III. Particular Legislation

10. Labels Indicating Weight of Goods, Capacity of Container, eta 11. Weighing Coal at Mines

12. Deductions from Actual Weights

IV. Violation of Statute or Ordinance as an Offense

13. In General

14. Knowledge or Intent as Element of Offense

I. INTRODUCTORY

1. Constitutionality and Construction of Regulatory Statutes Generally. Grievances owing to differences in weights and measures led to the declaration in Magna Charta that there should be but "one weight and measure throughout the kingdom," and resulted in early legislation in England for the prevention of fraud in regard thereto.2 Statutes regulating the weighing or measuring of commodities, and requiring that all persons whose business transactions involve the use of weights and measures shall conform to the regulations prescribed, have also been enacted in most of the states of this country, and such statutes have generally been sustained as constitutional, and a valid exercise of the police power. Such acts when otherwise valid can

N. E. 631, 57 Am. Rep. 869; Chicago v. Bowman Dairy Co., 234 Ill. 294, 84 N. E. 913, 123 A. S. R. 100, 14 Ann. Cas. 700 and note, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 684; Chicago v. Schmidinger, 243 Ill. 167, 90 N. E. 369, 17 Ann. Cas. 614, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 632 and note; Shellabarger Elevator Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 278 Ill. 333, 116 N. E. 170,

3. State v. Belle Springs Creamery Co., 83 Kan. 389, 111 Pac. 474, L.R.A. L.R.A.1917E 1011; Harris v. Rut1915D. 515; State v. Merchants Exch., 269 Mo. 346, 190 S. W. 903, Ann. Cas. 1917E 871 and note; State v. Armour, 27 N. D. 177, 145 N. W. 1033, Ann. Cas. 1916B 1149, L.R.A. 1916E 380 and note, affirmed in 240 U. S. 510, 36 S. Ct. 440, 60 U. S. (L. ed.) 771, Ann. Cas. 1916D 548; Weaver v. Fegely, 29 Pa. St. 27, 70 Am. Dec. 151 and note.

4. House v. Mayes, 219 U. S. 270, 31 S. Ct. 234, 55 U. S. (L. ed.) 213; Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 578, 33 S. Ct. 182, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 364, Ann. Cas. 1914B 284; McLean v. State, 81 Ark. 304, 98 S. W. 729, 126 A. S. R. 1037 and note, 11 Ann. Cas. 72, affirmed in 211 U. S. 539, 29 S. Ct. 206, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 315; Cartersville v. McGinnis, 142 Ga. 71, 82 S. E. 487, Ann. Cas. 1915D 1067 and note; Millett v. People, 117 Ill. 294, 7

ledge, 19 Ia. 388, 87 Am. Dec. 441 and note; State v. Wilson, 61 Kan. 32, 58 Pac. 981, 47 L.R.A. 71; State v. Belle Springs Creamery Co., 83 Kan. 389, 111 Pac. 474, L.R.A.1915D 515; People v. Wagner, 86 Mich. 594, 49 N. W. 609, 24 A. S. R. 141 and note, 13 L.R.A. 286 and note; State v. Eck, 121 Minn. 202, 141 N. W. 106, Ann. Cas. 1914C 678 and note; State v. Merchants' Exch., 269 Mo. 346, 190 S. W. 903, Ann. Cas. 1917E 871 and note; Freadrich v. State, 89 Neb. 343, 131 N. W. 618, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 650; State v. Armour, 27 N. D. 177, 145 N. W. 1033, Ann. Cas 1916B 1149 apd note, L.R.A.1916E 380 and note, affirmed in 240 U. S. 510, 36 S. Ct. 440, 60 U. S. (L. ed.) 771, Ann. Cas. 1916D 548; Williams v. Sandles, 93 Ohio St. 92, 112 N. E. 206, Ann. Cas. 1918D 154 and note; Weaver v. Fegely, 29

not be impeached merely on the ground that they were unwise, but instances are not wanting in which legislative acts relating to weights and measures have been held invalid on the ground that they were mere arbitrary restrictions on the rights, privileges and legal capacities of a particular class. The word "person" as used in a statute relating to the sale of commodities by weight or measure and imposing a penalty on any person violating its provisions has been construed as including a corporation as well as a natural person."

2. Purpose of Acts.-The general object or purpose of acts for the regulation or standardization of weights and measures is the prevention of fraud, and to provide a method by which the purchasers of commodities may protect themselves from short weights and measures and be enabled to obtain the quantity of property bought and paid for," which has always been recognized as a proper subject for the exercise of the police power.10

3. Federal and State Powers.-Congress is given power by the United States Constitution, art. 1, § 8, to "fix the standard of weights and measures." In the absence, however, of the exercise by the national legislative body of the power thus conferred the states may fix the standard of their own weights and measures,11 on the theory

Pa. St. 27, 70 Am. Dec. 151 and note; O'Maley v. Freeport, 96 Pa. St. 24, 42 Am. Rep. 527; State v. Peel Splint Coal Co., 36 W. Va. 802, 15 S. E. 1000, 17 L.R.A. 385.

Notes: L.R.A.1916E 380; Ann. Cas. 1912C 251.

5. McLean v. State, 211 U. S. 539, 29 S. Ct. 206, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 315; Mobile v. Yuille, 3 Ala. 137, 36 Am. Dec. 441, overruled on another point by Huntsville v. Phelps, 27 Ala. 55. As to the general principle involved, see CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, vol. 6, pp. 107-108.

6. Millett v. People, 117 Ill. 294, 7 N. E. 631, 57 Am. Rep. 869; Harding v. People, 160 Ill. 459, 43 N. E. 624, 52 A. S. R. 344 and note, 32 L.R.A. 445; Vega Steamship Co. v. Consolidated Elevator Co., 75 Minn. 308, 77 N. W. 973, 74 A. S. R. 484 and note, 43 L.R.A. 843; In re Preston, 63 Ohio St. 428, 59 N. E. 101, 81 A. S. R. 642 and note; In re Steube, 91 Ohio St. 135, 110 N. E. 250, L. R. A. 1916E 377 and note; State v. Great Northern R. Co., 43 Wash. 658, 86 Pac. 1056, 117 A. S. R. 1084, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 908 and note.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1912C 232.

And see infra, par. 11, 12. 7. State v. Belle Springs Creamery Co., 83 Kan. 389, 111 Pac. 474, L.R.A. 1915D 515. Generally as to the application of the term "person" to corporations, see CORPORATIONS, vol. 7, pp. 31-35, 767.

8. McLean v. State, 81 Ark. 304, 98 S. W. 729, 126 A. S. R. 1037 and note, 11 Ann. Cas. 72, affirmed in 211 U. S. 539, 29 S. Ct. 206, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 315; State v. Belle Springs Creamery Co., 83 Kan. 389, 111 Pac. 474, L.R.A.1915D 515; State v. Eck, 121 Minn. 202, 141 N. W. 106, Ann. Cas. 1914C 678; State v. Armour, 27 N. D. 177, 145 N. W. 1033, Ann. Cas. 1916B 1147, L.R.A.1916E 380 and note, affirmed in 240 U. S. 510, 35 S. Ct. 440, 60 U. S. (L. ed.) 771, Ann. Cas. 1916D 548; State v. Co-operative Store Co., 123 Tenn. 399, 131 S. W. 867, Ann. Cas. 1912C 248 and note.

9. State v. Eck, 121 Minn. 202, 141 N. W. 106, Ann. Cas. 1914C 678. 10. See CONSTITUTIONAL Law, vol. 6, p. 208 et seq.

11. Harris v. Rutledge, 19 Ia. 388, 87 Am. Dec. 441 and note; Parker v.

that the states may exercise powers granted to Congress where Congress fails to exercise them,12 except when the grant is in express terms exclusive or coupled with a prohibition to the states, or where the grant to the one would make the exercise by the other absolutely and totally repugnant.13 Legislation of this character is not regarded as in conflict with the power given to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, the latter power in no way preventing a state from enacting statutes regulating commerce solely between citizens and residents of that state.14

4. Municipal Powers.-A state legislature may expressly confer on a municipal corporation the power to enact ordinances relating to weights and measures, and to make reasonable provisions for their enforcement,15 and it is generally held that even in the absence of an express grant of authority, the enactment and enforcement of such ordinances are a valid exercise of the general police powers of a municipal corporation, provided the regulations imposed are reasonable and not in conflict with the constitution or statutes of the state.16

Austin, 156 Mich. 573, 121 N. W. 322, 130 Mo. 323, 32 S. W. 649, 51 A. S. 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 266 and note; Wil- R. 566 and note; Phillips v. Allen, 41 liams v. Sandles, 93 Ohio St. 92, 112 Pa. St. 481, 82 Am. Dec. 486 and N. E.. 206, Ann. Cas. 1918D 154 and note. note; Weaver v. Fegely, 29 Pa. St. 27, 70 Am. Dec. 151 and note.

14. State v. Merchants' Exch., 269 Mo. 346, 190 S. W. 903, Ann. Cas. 1917E 871 and note; Charleston v. Rogers, 2 McCord L. (S. C.) 495, 13 Am. Dec. 751.

Notes: L.R.A.1916E 379; Ann. Cas. 1912C 252.

And see FOOD, vol. 11, p. 1116; MARKETS, vol. 18, p. 372. Generally as to the powers which may constitutionally be given to a municipal corporation, see MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, vol. 19, p. 706 et seq.

16. Mobile v. Yuille, 3 Ala. 137, 36 Am. Dec. 441, overruled on another point by Huntsville v. Phelps, 27 Ala. 55; Cartersville v. McGinnis, 142 Ga. 71, 82 S. E. 487, Ann. Cas. 1915D 1067 and note; Chicago v. Bowman Dairy Co., 234 Ill. 294, 84 N. E. 913, 123 A. S. R. 100, 14 Ann. Cas. 700 and note, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 684; Chicago v. Schmidinger, 243 Ill. 167, 90 N. E. 369, 17 Ann. Cas. 614, 44 L.R.A.(N.S.) 632 and note; State v. Merchants' Exch., 269 Mo. 346, 190 S. W. 903, Ann. Cas. 1917E 871 and

15. Mobile v. Yuille, 3 Ala. 137, 36 Am. Dec. 441, overruled on another point by Huntsville v. Phelps, 27 Ala. 55; People v. Wagner, 86 Mich. 594, 49 N. W. 609, 24 A. S. R. 141 note; O'Maley v. Freeport, 96 Pa. St. and note, 13 L.R.A. 286 and note; 24, 42 Am. Rep. 527. Parker v. Austin, 156 Mich. 573, 121 N. W. 322, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 266 and note; State v. Eck, 121 Minn. 202, 141 N. W. 106, Ann. Cas. 1914C 678 and note; Sylvester Coal Co. v. St. Louis,

Notes: 13 L.R.A. 286; 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 267; 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 732; Ann. Cas. 1912C 252.

And sec MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, vol. 19, pp. 798, 863.

Such an ordinance is not void as in restraint of trade, if it but relate to the regulation of the trade, and the regulation is for the good of the inhabitants of the city, or for the advantage of the trade and improvement of the commodity sold." Where an ordinance of the kind now under consideration is clearly within the powers granted to a municipality, the question whether the municipal authorities have selected the best means to accomplish the purpose is a matter with which the courts are not concerned.18 The wisdom of legislation within the power of the municipality to enact is to be decided by the proper municipal authorities, and the fact that one may suffer in his business by the enforcement of an ordinance relating to weights and measures where passed under the power conferred on the municipality does not deprive a city of its right to a proper exercise of it. Nor is the situation affected by the fact that the enforcement of such an ordinance may cause some inconvenience. 19

II. PUBLIC OFFICIALS, INSPECTION AND FEES

5. State Legislation.-In order to provide for the proper enforcement of statutes relating to weights and measures, provisions are frequently inserted therein creating certain offices and imposing on the incumbents thereof certain specified duties. Legislation of this character, as for instance where it requires commodities to be weighed by the public weigher, is regarded as within the police power of the state.20 and as not violating any common right. So it has been decided that a statute providing for the weighing of grain by a state weighmaster and making it unlawful for any private individual to issue a weight certificate is a valid exercise of the legislative power.2 The purpose of such legislation is to secure fair weights for all parties concerned and to protect both the seller and the public.3

6. Municipal Powers.-In some states the legislatures have delegated to municipalities the power of determining the necessity of local legislation in regard to the creation of offices in connection with measures having for their object the protection of the public in respect to weights and measures, and such ordinances have been held not to be

17. Mobile v. Yuille, 3 Ala. 137, 36 Am. Dec. 441, overruled on .another point by Huntsville v. Phelps, 27 Ala.

55.

18. Sylvester Coal Co. v. St. Louis, 130 Mo. 323, 32 S. W. 649, 51 A. S. R. 566 and note.

19. Cartersville v. McGinnis, 142 Ga. 71, 82 S. E. 487, Ann. Cas. 1915D 1067 and note.

20. State v. Merchants' Exch., 269 Mo. 346, 190 S. W. 903, Ann. Cas. 1917E 871 and note.

Notes: 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 731; Ann. Cas. 1912C 256; Ann. Cas. 1918D 157.

1. State v. Merchants' Exch., 269 Mo. 346, 190 S. W. 903, Ann. Cas. 1917E 871 and note.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1912C 255.

2. State v. Merchants' Exch.. 269 Mo. 346, 190 S. W. 903, Ann. Cas. 1917E 871 and note.

3. State v. Merchants' Exch., 269 Mo. 346, 190 S. W. 903, Ann. Cas. 1917E 871 and note.