Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-05-08
From the ~ York Commercial, april 70,
COMMERCIAL LAW CASE,

On Merchants, Shippers, Exporters, Inspectors Of
Flour, &c.
Last week, in the present April term OF the
Court of Common Pleas OF this city and coun-
~, before Judge Irving and Jury, was tired
an action of debt brought on the statute, "for
the inspection of -four and meal" sc. to recov-
err the penalty (of Sloo) imposed on breach
of tina, statute. This statute is all important
one to the mercantile and agricultural interests,
and was passed to raise the credit and protect
The character Of New York -four, both at home
and abroad In providing inspectors and point
ING GU, their duty, (2nd Revised Laws Of New
York, 1921 it says, among other directions, that
"on all -four and meal injured IN manuiactu'
ring or otherwise damaged, so as not 10 oe nj
for expectation under any ofthe herein before
enumerated qualities ir the Judgment Of said i'll
inspector, he shall mark or brand on the same
word "bad'. And in section 10th OF said stat
ute, (s:me book p. $3.50 it is declared, that vi
any person shall aher OF counterfeit any OF the
aforesaid brand marks, whether state or private
such person shall forfeit for every such offence,
the sum of one hundred dollars ''-one half OF
which is TO pro to the prosecutor, and the other
hslfto the oyerseers of the poor, (or Commits
sioner of the Aims house in this city,
|
ned for expectation, some two or three hundred
| barrels of.sbad" flour, which bad been inspect
ed and 50 brand marked-which brand-mark
"bsd" itappearcd, hehad wholly cut out, or TO-
| tally ob'iterated by 4 cutIng-kn SO that the
barrels appeared as if they had never been marx
cd or branded. There was some show oil ar
gument on the morality or immortality OF the
transaction, the plaintiffs counsel contcndins,
that it was immoral, if no, criminal, m the
highest degree and tended to inJure the repu-
tation or this country, in any and every place,
where such bad -four might be passed oil, either
as good merchandise -four, or as flour that
was, al least, or even supposed by purchasers
to be bad & was, TO say the mlldest thinS OF
il, a breach Of good faith; and the defendant
counsel arguing, that before the existence OF
this statute, il certainly could not have been all
offence, nor is there any immortality IN II since
1t is moi NAHUM IN sc bad or evil IN ltseH,) Out
only ualuni prohibifum Lonly evil or bad because
il is prohibited;) and aside from the law or reg
ulation, it could be no way cu'paole mucn
less criminal-alf -four then being exported
without any brand or mark whatever on the
barrels or casks
But the main point, on which the defendants
counsel relied Cor defence, was, that this cutting
out and totaly obEteratng the letters, was not al,
alteration, and that the defendant did not "dNef
the brand-mark, he only destroyed II, and had
NOT therefore committed breach OF the sta
tu,e. And so, replied the plaintiff counsel,
when a person had been charged with altering
title deed, il was denied, because, on prodnc-
ing the parchment, on which the tliie-deea A"a
been written. the ink had all been rubbed out
bv rubber, and not aletter or character was !eit
discernible on it, BUTT was decided, that lhls
was an alteration, as we'll as destruction 81
the letters, words and phrases, which conveyed
the title and although it was contendea, mat
there was the very same substance, vet II Is nor
the Same thing, to any purpose or intent, "h'Ch
before constituted il title-deed and not merely
a piece Of parchment, but was actually dlner
cnt and another thing, which is al that dfsf
mcans-alter, another, to make or cause thlhS
10 be another or difference from what II was
before in its use, effect, or value. Verdict ior
the plaintiff, for 500 debt, and cents costs
y. B. Sundry separate suits had been COM
mcuced against the same defendant 'or the
same penalty in the case OF each single oraha
altered, and several Of them were on the caieh-
der ready for trial; but on this verdlcts being
pronounced, the defendant put IN plea OF pms
dayrein continuance in all The SAID other causes,
setting forth, in efcc. that all the alterations on
all the barrels were made on one and the same
dav. and therefore constitute but one act, but one
breach of the statute; and that, as one verdic'
had been rendered, no other or further penalty
can be recovered on account OF this transac'
ton. or any part Of it. 1t is understood, taa'
the plaintiff will reply to this plea, denying that
this verdict is a bar to the further proceedings
in the other suits, or TO like recovery IN each,
(see the word "any" in The statute above citedl
but he has not yet replied or answered, and OF
course the said other suits cannot be tried tiil
the next term.
Price and An;hon for Plaintiff. /. ,. Ogden
and P. A. Jay for Defendant.