Seattle's Watered-Milk Case Collapsed on a Question of Intent

Judge Glasgow yesterday rendered an important decision in the case of the City of Seattle v. George Amos, charged with selling adulterated milk, holding that when a man disposed of milk which appeared to be pure, nothing having transpired to cause him to make inquiry, he could not be held responsible for the fraud. The defendant was not guilty under the ordinance.

About ten days ago Milk and Market Inspector Braymer discovered that a lot of forty-six gallons of milk which came in from Kenton from the farm of W. H. Putnam, and was consigned to George Amos, a milkman doing a retail business on his own account in this city, was watered. He took a sample of it, gave a sample to Mr. Amos and dumped the balance of it in the gutter. His sample was taken to the office of City Chemist Bogardus, who found by analysis that out of the forty-six gallons from ten to twelve had been water. Braymer immediately swore out a warrant under ordinance 2,410, which provided that anyone who sold adulterated milk in his possession with the intention of offering it for sale was guilty of violating the ordinance.

The case was tried before Judge Glasgow yesterday. Market Inspector Braymer testified to his discovery and subsequent disposition of the adulterated milk. Health Officer Palmer testified to Mr. Amos acknowledging ownership of the milk. City Chemist Bogardus told of his analysis. George Amos, in his own behalf, corroborated the prosecution and said that he had been getting milk from this same ranch for over three years; that it had been frequently tested and found pure; that about three months ago Mr. Putnam assumed charge of the ranch, and since that time the supply had steadily increased from thirty to forty-six and forty-eight gallons; that this had not particularly attracted his attention, as it was springtime and new cows were coming in; that the milk had not been tested since he had been getting it from Putnam; that four or five customers had recently complained that the milk was not as good as it had been; that he believed this was owing to the fact that when cows are "fresh" the milk is not as rich as in the fall or winter, when the cows are "strippers"; that immediately on being notified that the milk was watered he went up to the ranch and confronted Mr. Putnam with the analysis, demanding to know why he had put water in the milk. Putnam denied all knowledge of the watered milk and laid it on his son, who, he said, had charge of the milk. Amos further stated that he paid 12 cents a gallon for the milk, the wholesale price for first-class milk; that he had always paid Putnam promptly, and felt much put out and aggrieved to think he had been imposed upon.

Judge Glasgow held that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of the fact is a defense. The law may make it the duty of one to exercise a certain amount of diligence and precaution when failure to do so might be made a crime. This ordinance did not require sellers of milk to examine and test, and it did not appear that the defendant was any more negligent than any man of ordinary business prudence would have been. He had been in the milk business for three years and had never met with any experience calculated to make him suspect that this milk was watered.

Judge Glasgow condemned that section of the ordinance which empowered the market inspector to condemn milk deemed by him to be adulterated and pour it upon the ground as unconstitutional and in violation of the constitutional guarantee that no one shall be deprived of property without due process of law. He therefore could not find Mr. Amos guilty when he was convinced that Amos did not know, or even suspect, that his milk was not absolutely pure. The defendant was discharged.