New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-02-23
THE COURTS.
Decision by Judge Theard-Is Flour an
Agricultural Product.


| Court, on Tuesday last delivered the follow
ing opinion. Yesterday, the twenty-second
| instant, being legal holiday, all the courts
| stood adjourned over until to-day, Thurs
| day. the twenty third instant.
| Glover & Odendahl vs.. George B. Shute;
| Citizens Bank. IntervenOr.-The facts i'll
this case are not disputed. Glover & Oden-
dahl sold to George B. Shute 1923 barrels OF
| flour, for cash, and delivered the merchan-
| disc without exacting payment. Shute sent
| the flour on board of the bark MinOt, load
ing for Liverpool, took bills Of ladins for
| the -four purchased Of plaintiffs, and, upon
| the pledge of said bills OF lading, obtained
| from the Citizens Bank certain advances.
| for which he drew his bills Of exchange
Shute having absconded without paying
for the flour, plaintiffs sequestered the same,
| under the five days privilege i'll favor OF
| vendors Of agricultural products. The Citi-
| Zens' Bank intervened, and claimed the
preference under the bills Of lading trans
| fcrred to them and as possessors Of the
| flour.
The act of 1855, relative to privileges, on
which the plaintiffs rely, says: That any
| person who may sell the agricultural pro
| duets of the United States in the city Of
| New Orleans shall be entitled to n special
| lien and privilege thereon, to secure the
| payment OF the purchase money, for and
| during the space of five days only, after the
! day Of delivery: within which time the
| vendor shall be entitled to seize the same
in whatsoever hands or place it may be
found, and his claim for the purchase
| money shall have preference over all
Others" Acts of 1885, y. 1863.
The defense of the Citizens Bank is, that
-four Is not. in the eye of the law, an a2ri-
cultural product but a manufactured ar
tirie, and therefore does not come within
the privilege granted.
The only question, then. presented for the
decision of the court is. whether ''fOur,
the property seized in this suit. is one of the
agricultural products of the United States
within the meaning of the act OF 1850.
The learned counsel tor Glover 4
Odenhahl say: "If what the earth yields
as the reward OF tillage, culture or hus
bandrv. were to remain in that condition.
the adaptation of it to the necessities OF
man would be limited. Take, for example,
corn: the tillage and culture OF it ceases
| when it is shucked; but it does not come to
market in that slate. On the contrary.
many agricultural implements have been
invented to shell it, take the grains from
the husk, vet 10 would hardly be
contended that corn sold in sacks was not
within the protection of the five days lien.
Take oats and wheat for example. Where
shall we draw the sharp line where it
ceases to be an agricultural product !:
NineteentwentiethS OF 1t Is. cleaned by
means OF threshcrs and scparatorS. and we
can scarcely think that wheat and oats
do not fall within the aforesaid lien law.
| The same may be said of rice, as it be-
comes a commercial product The sePara-
ton OF the hull requires large and expensive
machinery TO fit it for the market. Take
the article of sugar: the tllage and culture
of the cane is a very simple process. and
the preparation OF it for commerce Is effect
ed through the instrumentality of machine
~. and in some instances of chemicals.
When we use it in our coffee. it no more re-
sembles the cane than the -four resembles
the wheat from which it is made. Ground
cane makes Juice. and boiled juice makes
sugar and ground wheat makes flour.
Take the tobacco crop. Should it be con
tended that the leaf when put in hogsheais
shall be regarded as an agricultural pro-
duct: but when it is stcmnAd and pa. in
small boxes, it ceases TO be such. and the
sale OF it does not come under the protection
of the law
To this able reasoning the learned co,;nsc
for the Citizens Bank answers:
Wheat is the agricultural product. but
-four is a manufactured article. The law. 4
law strict j,Dis. speaks only of agricultural
products, and does not say all goods manu-
featured from agricultural products. Cot
ton is an agricultural product. but yarn Is
is an agricultural product. but not ba ggins
or rope. though manufactured from hemp.
Tobacco is an agricultural product. but
snuff is Il manufactured article. though II
might be said also that it is merely ground
or pounded tobacco. The same may be said
of the cigar, which is the leaf of the tobac-
co rolled for smoking purposes.
at is impossible to escape the meaning
of the words agricultural products 1t
yuo,u, tho raw ruotpri2l cOn,iuo from the
hands of the farmer. and their intcndmcnt
can not be extended to manufactured altl-
cleS.'
This reasoning is certainly powerful and
the court was thrown into Il state OF much
doubt and perplexity. But the young and
learned counsel for G. L. Buddecke & Co.,
another firm swindlcd by Shute, have, in my
humble opinion, cleared all possibility OF
doubt in the matter before the court. They
say with reason:
Now the words of the law, the agriclll-
tural products OF the United States, are
used in their most general sense. and should
be similarly interpreted.
"If flour be not an agricultural product.
it would necessarily be Il manufactured
agricultural product.
'The law makes no distinction between
a manufactured aud an unmanutactured
agricultural product. 1t embraces the 'agri-
cultural products of the United States,
which expressions are not qualified in any
manner whatever that would warrant the
court to make the distinction contendcd for.
Where the law makes no distinction the
court can not. > n. 5. 7} N. S. 49l: 1 \.
6j7; IL A. TO; II A. 3lj, 46i, S33.''
Messrs Buddccke & Upton are right.
The distinction between agricultural pro-
duct and manufactured articles can not be
entertained by the court, when it is clearly
shown that the manufactured article is
simply the manufactured product. 1t is
still the product and as such, is entitled to
the lien granted by law.
For these reasons, let there be Judgment
in favor of plaintiffs against the defendants,
with privilege on the property sequcstered,
and dismissng intervenOrs claim.
Professor Oakley, the Edinburgh organ
ist, at a concert the ether day, when ho
played some of Bacll's fusues, said to his
audience II am quite aware that tugues
are not generally popular with my audience
here; and, indeed. in consequence OF their
intricacy, fuSues are difficult to follow, ex-
cepting to musicians. But nevertheless,
the more you hear of Bach, the better you
will like him, and his music is very good
tonic for improving your musical taste. The