Statesville Daily
A Forsyth citizen was hauled before a magistrate for selling diseased meat—hogs alleged to be infected with cholera. The magistrate found the accused guilty and gave him the limit of his jurisdiction—30 days in jail, which is too little if the man is guilty. The defendant denies that the hogs were diseased and appeals his case.
Unless he is able to show a clean bill of health for his actin in the matter the igher court should impose punishment in accordance with the crime. It is possible that diseased animals may be killed and sold for food without the owner having knowledge of the disease, or suspecting it. In such case he would of course be punished lightly, if at all. But inasmuch as there are people who knowingly and willfully sell diseased meat, the discovery of the disease prompting quick sale, if the meat is found impure the burden is on the accused to show that he was without knowledge of the facts.
The sale of tainted or diseased meats, or impure food, is the same as putting poison in the food. The seller might forbear if he believed that serious consequences would result. But no matter what his intent, he is guilty of selling poisoned food and should be punished as one who deliberately attempts to take a life. When he willingly and knowingly subjects the consumer to danger, is guilty is the same whether serious consequences result or not. The courts have the reprehensive habit of lightly regarding offenses when no serious consequences result, regardless of the potential danger. The legal practice in effect is this: You may try to kill somebody or subject them to risks that may have serious or fatal results. But if they are so fortunate as to escape, your share in the matter is lightly regarded, although you may have willed it otherwise.
From page 6 of the Concord Daily Tribune, Monday, Oct. 4, 1926
newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92073201/1926-10-04/ed-1/seq-6/
No comments:
Post a Comment