The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1862-05-31
Ole Cecil lDbiQ.
ELKTON. MAY 81, 1869.
The Grain Inspection Law.

In last weeks WAiy we briefly
noticed the decision of Judge King OF
the Court of Common Pleas, in the case
of the State Us. w. e. Seth, an indie
pendent wcghcr Of grain in the ely OF
Baltimore, but in order that the fa,mer,
who is most deeply interested in this
matter of grain inspection, may fully
understand the law, We give the report
of the Court in full, as appeared in The
Sun.
Mr.. b. F. May, Inspector General OF
Grain, &C., has arraigncd upwards OF
twenty parties for weighing grain in
violation of law, the magistrate giving
judgment against the parties in every
case. Two casos-thosc of Seth and
Goodwin, as will be seen bclow-wcre
carried up to the Court of Common
Pleas, tue magistrates judgement in one
Of the cases, that of Seth, was reversed
by Judge King, Sch having written
order from the owner of the grain
authorizing him to weigh. The judg-
ment in the case of Goodwin was CON
firmed, he having been employed by an
agent, or commission merchant and not
by the owner, to weigh the grain. All
the other parties against whom the suits
were brought, are consequently in the
same category with Goodwin, aud are
mulctcd in the fine of $25 for each and
every offcnse.
estate vs.. VIM. G. Seth. Appeal
from Justice Hiss. This is an action
brought in the name of the State OF
Maryland against William G.. Sch,
before justice of the peace, to recover
the penalty prescribed for violation of
the 395th sec ion of the 18th article of the
public local laws, commonly known as
the grain inspection laws. The languag &c
of the section under which the penalty
is sought to be enforced is in these
words "No person except those APP
pointed under this article shall inspect,
weigh or measure any grain within the
city OF Baltimore, that may arrive for
sale, under the penalty of twenty-five
dollars for every offense, to be recovered
in the name of the State, for the use Of
the informer, before any justice of the
peace in and for the city of Baltimore. >
The defendant pleads an exemption from
the enforcement of this penalty by virtue
of the 800 h section, which is in these
words: " Nothing contained in this
article shall be construed to take away
from any owner of grain the right, by
written order to his agent or cousignee,
desiring him to sell without inspection
to sell and deliver the same withou,
complying with the provisions of this
article" 1t is admitted, by agreement
of counsel filed in this case, that the
commission mercllan', the consignee, solo
the grain on its arrival in this city under
the written order of the consignor,
requesting him to take from under tho
inspection laws any grain of his con-
signed to him, and that he requested the
defendant to weigh the same, and tina
the defendant did accordingly weigh i;
to ascer ain the quantity, under contract
of sale. rss- saa.
The court below gave judgmep agains1
the defendant, and he has appealed tc
this court.
1t becomes the duty of this court
therefore, to interpret the provisions o.
this article just quo ed, and to ascertain
and define their meaning and effect.
There is, in the opinion of the court
but one practical conclusion to be drawn
from these provisions, thus considered
together, and that is, that the words "tt
inspect" and "to weigh and measur,
by the INSPECTOR" are used interchange
bly,, and mean, in fact, one and the sam,
thing, and more especially $50 who,
no compensation is provided for any
other mode of inspection than BY weigh
or BY measurement.