#### STATE v. KINCHEN EDWARDS.

(Filed 27 February, 1924.)

Health — Municipal Corporations — Ordinances—Milk—Pasteurization.

An ordinance requiring milk to be pasteurized under reasonable regulations before being sold for human consumption within its limits, and requiring an annual license therefor from the county health officer, is a valid exercise of the police power of.a city; and a fine of twenty-five dollars may be imposed upon one violating its provisions.

Appeal by defendant from Qormor, J., at October Term, 1923, of EDGECOMBE.

Criminal prosecution tried upon a warrant charging tbe defendant with selling milk within tbe town of Tarboro which bad not been pasteurized as required by ordinance. From a conviction and fine of $25 and costs, tbe defendant appeals.

Attorney-General Manning, Assistant Attorney-General Nash, and Gilliam & Bond for the State.

Q. M. Fountain and W. 0. Howard for defendant.

Stacy, J.

Defendant assails tbe validity of bis trial upon tbe ground that tbe ordinance under which be was convicted is an unreasonable exercise of tbe police power and is therefore void. Tbe pertinent provisions of tbe ordinance in question are as follows:

> “(b) After 1 August, 1918, it shall be unlawful for any milk or cream to be sold for human consumption in tbe town of Tarboro which shall not have been previously pasteurized in accordance with tbe standard set forth in this ordinance. (Standard duly set forth in a subsequent section.)

> “(d) No milk may be sold in tbe town of Tarboro except by persons having a license for this purpose, which license first shall have been *260obtained from tbe county health, officer. Such license must be renewed yearly, and is subject to cancellation at any time in case of violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance by the licensee.

> “(w) Violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor, and a fine of $25 shall be imposed upon any person found guilty of such violation.”

That a city in the exercise of its police power may require milk for human consumption to be pasteurized, and may prescribe reasonable regulations under which the pasteurization shall be done, is the decision in Koy v. Chicago, 268 Ill., 122; 104 N. E., 1104; Ann. Cas., 1915 C, 67. To like effect is the holding in Pfeffer v. Milwaukee, 177 N. W. (Wis.), 850; 10 A. L. R., 128. And S. v. Kirkpatrick, 179 N. C., 747, is in support of the same position. We think the ordinance in question is valid. Lee v. Waynesville, 184 N. C., 565; 6 R. C. L., 241. Its violation is admitted by the defendant.

No error.