What is the test for establishing prima facie evidence in the context of the sale of unwholesome milk?

Now, an examination of the present law clearly shows that it relates to, and is appropriate to promote, the public health. Whether its details are wise we do not know; but its object is evident and is good. Its first section forbids the sale of unclean, impure, unhealthy, adulterated, or unwholesome milk. Then its thirteenth gives a statement of some conditions which are included within the terms adulterated, unclean, impure, unhealthy, and unwholesome milk. There is nothing, as I think, wrong in this mode of legislation. A law may describe an offense by some general word, and may then say that the word shall include such and such things. This thirteenth section declares that milk drawn from cows within 15 days before and 5 days after parturition shall be declared unwholesome, etc., and the same of milk from animals fed on distillery waste; and that milk below a certain stated standard shall be declared adulterated. Now, this is equivalent to saying that no person shall sell milk drawn from cows within that time of parturition, or fed on distillery waste, or milk below a certain standard; and the mere circumstance that section first contains a general prohibition, and section thirteenth a particular specification, does not, in my opinion, affect the validity of the statute. The case of People v. Lyon, 27 Hun, 180, is quite different. There the defendants were indicted for selling liquors to be drunk, etc. The court charged that if a person was seen to drink in the shop this was prima facie evidence that the liquor was sold by the occupant with intent that the liquor should be so drunk. The court held that the statute which made the lawful act of a third person, with which the accused was not connected, prima facie evidence of his guilt, deprived him of his right to a trial by jury, and was unconstitutional