The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1862-05-31

because this penalty must be enforced,
if enforced at all, on the very ground,
that for any other person than the legally
appointed inspector to weigh and meas
ure grain brought to the city, for sale,
is to violate the inspcc ion law, which
confers upon the inspector, by virtue of
his Office, the exclusive right, to use the
words of the law, to " weigh and mspec',"
or inspect and weigh" and to receive
the compensation allowed by law for
inspecting grain.
1t necessarily follows, therefore, that
any provision of the law which au horizos
sale and delivery of grain wi hout com
plying wi Ii the provision Of The inspec-
lion law, must authorize sale and
delivery without reference to the acts
and duties incident and essential to
inspection, whatever they may be-
Accordingly, the 30Gth section, under
which the exemption is claimed, and
which we have quoted at length, pro-
vldcs " that nothing contained in the
article shall be construed to take away
from the owner Of grain, desiring to have
1t sold without inspection, to sci! and
deliver the same without reference to
the provisions of the inspection law. -
It is wcll-established rule of law, that
when right is gran ed or reserved, all
aud every incident necessary to the rca-
souablc aud proper exercise of the right
is necessarily implied Therefore the
right to sell and deliver grain without
subsection to The inspection law includes
the right to do and perform whatever is
requisite to cffectuatc a sale and delivery
clear of the operation of the inspection
laws. But it was contcnded hy the
learned counsel for the State that the
right to sell and deliver grain without
inspection must be confined to cases
where sale and delivery can be effected
without weight or measurement, (Which
would be cases, if possible, in which
neither party would know how much was
sold or how much was bought.) And
that IN all cases where it is necessary to
weigh and measure the grain in order to
effect IL sale and delivery, the owner has
no right to sell or order his consgnce to
sell without reference to the inspection
law, because the 30Jih section forLids,
under penalty of twenty-five dollars,
any other person than those appointed
under this article to inspcc, weigh and
measure grain.
This construction would be perfectly
correct if this section is to be considered
by itself, without reference to the other
sections of the article. This, however,
is just what the court has no. right or
authority to do, no matter how plain that
section may be standing alone, the law
itself, acting as its own Interpreter,
expressly cnacts that nothing contained in
that section, or in any other one, shall be
so construed as TO take away from any
owner of grain the right by his written
order to his agent or conSisncc, desiring
him to sell wi hout inspection, o sell aud
deliver his grain without complying with
The provisions Of this article, provision
of the sec ion 393 included, as matter
of course, as well as all the rest. 1t
follows, therefore, that where the con-
signor has, by written order, desired his
agent or consignce to sell his grain with
out inspcc ion, and the consignee has
complied with the order, that any person
or persons employed in doing whatever
is necessary to eIcctuate such sale and
delivery cannot be regarded as viola ing
the provisions Of The ar clc, and conso-
qnently they are not subject 10 its penal
ties. Judgment reversed.
State VS.. G0dUm-This is an action
brought for the enforcement of the same
penalty and under the same section of
fourth article of the public local laws,
as in the case of the State against Seth.
The defendant in this case claims exemp-
ton from the penalty under proviso of
subsection = of section 3S9 of the
amended laws, which is in these words
provided that nothing herein contained
shall require grain to be inspected, but
that it shall be optional with the seller
to have his grain inspected or not, under
the law, as he may desire" 1t is adm =
ted that the commission merchant, being
consignce, sold the grain on its arrival
in the city, and requested the defendant
to weigh IT, he not being an inspector,
and that he did accordingly weigh 1t to
ascertain the quantity under the contract
of SAFE. Judgment below was rendered
against the defendant and he has
appealed to this court.
The general policy of the inspection
law which is indicated in the 30Gth Sec
ton of the 4th ar icle, it would seem to
be, is to allow the owner of grain,
shipped to this markc; for sale, to order
his agent or consignee to sell without
inspcc ion.
The objection here seems to be to
confer this privilege upon the owners
There is no language in the amended
law which dlrec ly repeats this section,
although the court does not see the
necessity of inserting the proviso. The
whole law must, however, be construed
togo, her, and the court does not under
stand this proyiso as extending to the
consignee, commission merchant, the
right which is expressly reserved in the
396th sec ion 10 tho owner. The Ian
guage is that it shall be optional with
the seller to haze his gram inspected.
The commission merchant does not,
strictly speaking, sell his grain, but
another mans grain, for which he
receives his commission or compensation.
10 81