1144 ARTICLE 27

depositing at'such hotel, inn, boarding house, hospital or sanitarium any
baggage or property of a realizable value less than the amount of such
credit or of the bill by such person incurred whether or not such person
shall have made any payment on account; and every person who, after ob-
taining credit or accommodation at any hotel, inn, boarding house, hospital
or sanitarium shall abscond or fraudulently depart or fraudulently re-
move his baggage therefrom without discharging the debts as aforesaid
incurred, whether or not such person shall have made any payment on
account, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof
shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or by
imprisonment in jail for a term of not less than one month nor more than
six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of
the Court. And in determination of any question arising under this sec-
tion the fact that any such persons so obtaining food, accommodation or
credit, upon request or demand for payment of any amount then due there-
for failed or neglected to comply in full with such demand shall be treated
as presumptive evidence that such failure or neglect to make such pay-
ment was fraudulent even though payment, of a portion of the amount then
due shall have been made or a payment on account for the food, accommo-
dation or credit so obtained had theretofore been made, and similarly the
fact that the departure of any such person or removal of his baggage with-
out first paying or discharging in full his debt as aforesaid, even though
a payment on account of such debt may have been made, was without
the knowledge or consent of the proprietor or manager of such hotel, inn,
boarding house, hospital or sanitarium, or the representative or agent of
such proprietor or manager, shall be treated as presumptive evidence that
such departure or removal was fraudulent. Nothing in this Section shall
apply to or affect the prosecution of any offense which may have been
committed prior to June 1, 1939, or the punishment provided for such
offense.

Fraud—Butter—Oleomargarine.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 156. 1912, sec. 135. 1904, sec. 122. 1888, sec. 88. 1886, ch. 455, sec. 1.
1888, ch. 312, sec. 1. 1900, ch. 496. 1910, ch. 437 (p. 87).

170. No person shall manufacture, offer or expose for sale, sell or de-
liver, or have in his possession with intent to sell or deliver within this
State, as for natural butter, renovated butter, butter made by the Quinness
patent or process, or that made by other similar process, whereby casein
of milk or other ingredients are made to imitate and resemble natural but-
ter made from cream or other substitute made or colored to imitate natural

butter.

Indictment charging accused of selling substitute for butter and using words of
statute, is sufficient without giving specific description or name of substitute. Hicken v.
State, 146 Md. 252.

That the oleomargarine in traverser's possession was made in another state and was
retained by him in original package unbroken; that it was a pure article of commerce
though colored in imitation of yellow butter; and that traverser had not offered such
oleomargarine for sale as butter constitutes a defense to an indictment under this
section. It makes no difference that oleomargarine was colored in imitation of yellow
butter unless it be alleged and proven that coloring matter is impure and injurious to
health. Plea setting forth above facts is not bad as amounting to general issue. Mc-
Allister v. State, 94 Md. 299 (decided prior to act, 1910, ch. 437). And see Medairy v.
McAllister, 97 Md. 491; Fox v. State, 89 Md. 381; Rasch v. State, 89 Md. 755.

Since a state cannot prohibit sale in original packages of oleomargarine imported from
another state, this section will be so construed as to apply only to oleomargarine made
in this state or not sold in original packages when imported. The state has the right,
however, to prohibit sale of impure and deleterious articles of food whether imported