Graham v. Justice's Court

California Court of Appeal Apr 13, 1937 No. Civ. 5811Published

Before: Pullen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the criminal complaint sufficiently identified the offense charged despite the use of the word "unlabeled" instead of "unmarked," and that the Honey Standardization Law is a constitutional exercise of the legislature's police power.

Issues

Whether the criminal complaint sufficiently states an offense despite using the term "unlabeled" instead of "unmarked."
Whether the Honey Standardization Law is a constitutional exercise of legislative police power.

Disposition. Writ discharged

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the common use of language the words mark and label are interchangeable.”

“A complaint charging a misdemeanor need not describe the offense with the same degree of technical precision that is required in the case of indictment and information.”

“the act itself is a constitutional exercise of the power of the legislature.”

PULLEN, P. J.

By this writ petitioner seeks to prevent

respondent court and the justice thereof, from bringing petitioner to trial upon a complaint which, it is alleged, fails to state any offense known to the law.

Two questions are here presented: First, the sufficiency of the complaint under which petitioner is charged, and secondly, the constitutionality of the Honey Standardization Law, Statutes of 1935, chapter 521; Agricultural Code, Statutes 1933, chapter 25,

The complaint upon which the warrant of arrest was issued charges “that on or about the 20th day of November, 1936, at and in the Colusa judicial township . . . the crime of selling unlabeled honey in violation of Section 844 of the Agricultural Code, a misdemeanor, was committed by C. I. Graham, as follows, to-wit: The said C. I. Graham at the time

[330]

and place aforesaid did wilfully and unlawfully sell and deliver ... an unlabeled can of honey”.

It is the use of the word “unlabeled” in the complaint instead of the word “unmarked” as used in the statute that first draws the fire of petitioner. The only provision in section 844 of the code referring to

labels

reads as follows: “ . . . any containers or subcontainers of honey imported from any territory or foreign country shall be

labeled

with the name of the territory

country of its origin. ’ ’ This provision also provides that any blended honey not produced in continental United States as well as honey which is a blend of two or more types of honey, shall be so labeled, and that no containers or subcontainers of honey shall be marked or labeled with the name “California” unless produced entirely within this state. It is apparent, however, petitioner was charged with a violation of that part of section 844 of the Agricultural Code, which provides in part, “All containers or subcontainers of honey shall be conspicuously marked with the name and address of the producer or distributor; the net weight . . . and the grade designation.” Section 842 makes it unlawful to sell any honey in bulk or in any container or sub container which does not conform to the provisions of the code.

Graham v. Justice's Court

AI Brief

PULLEN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief