Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-06-17
LEVITICAL LAW.
Justice Baskette Decides the "Un-
wholesome Veal Case in Favor Of
the Jewish Imn-Heeper.

Justice Baskette Decides the "Un-
wholesome Veal Case in Favor Of
the Jewish Inn-ReePer.
Justice Baskette's decision IN the case Of
Jordan, one OF the Cox iurymen, rs. L.
Franklin, will be read with interest. Ne
publish the fall text:
j. NJ. Jordan VS.. Z. Franklin.
The plaintiff sues defer dant for damages,
which, he alleges, he sustained from eating
unwholesome food in the shape Of calf
killed by defendant, and alleged TO be dis
eased. The proof for the plaintiff shows
that several days previous to The killing,
the calf was sick. This fact was swO;n TO
BY several witnesses, all jurors except one,
who testified that the calf was pUny. Esq.
Spain, one of the Jurors, testified that he
admired the form and build Of the calf,
and had made up his mind to buy it, but
upon looking at it, came to the conclusion
not 70 do so, because he thought 1t sick
calf"
The proof further shows that 10 one ex-
cept the jurors who sue was ever made
sick by eating the calf. One Of the sick
jurors testifi d to the fact that the calf had
iy-blOws in IFS rear. This is the proof for
the plaintiff.
The defendant shows by ". II. T. Nor
gan where the calf came from, and the age,
and that on the Friday previous to the kill
ing Of the same, he intended to take the
calf out home with him; that there was
nothing the matter with the calf. I be de-
PENDANT further proves that on the Sunday
previous he had the calf at the Sulphur
Spring on grass, ard that on Monday and
Tuesday il was kept at the Franklin House
in a cellar, and there became very warm
and painted considerably from the
heat. This was tie time that
the Jurors testify they saw the calf and
pronounced it sick. The defendant fur
Their shows that on Wednesdaythe calf was
again driven from the Franklin House 10
the Sulphur Spring, and kept on grass that
day until in the evening, when 1t was
butcheTed. The defendant proves by the
| Jewish SachOd, who Stays the meats &C
cordirg to their custom, that he examined
| the calf before killing it, and pronounced It
sound: that after he had slain it, aud it was
| disembOWeled according to the custom OF
/ the Jews, he continued his examination OF
/ the flesh, lungs and bowels, and says
I IL was healthy, wholesome food; that
there was no faint of disease about
/ il, as he saw 10 fy-blOws about the
| rear Of the calf, as was proven by the
plaintiff. The defendant further shows by
| The parties who assisted in killing the calf
| that il was not ly-blown, and by his cook
/ that it was as fine piece OF veal as he
| ever cooked; that the calf was cooked Tor
his guests; that himself and family par
/ took If il; that he ate part Of the head
| and tongue for his dinner, Thursday, and
/ that his wife eat the liver Of the calf, and
| by divers witnesses that they ate of it, and
| felt no nausea, nor discovered any I'M
| whOleSUneuess about the same.
| Ii is insisted by the plaintiff that he Is
entitled TO recover punitive damages; If no
| more than is prescribed in section 1873 OF
| the Code Of Tennessee, he is entitled 70
| recover SO. The section Of the Code re-
| farred to gives the right Of a qui tam ac-
| ton in the name Of the State for the use OF
| the person who sues for the penalty fixed
| bv law for the wrongful act of the defend
| ant This IS not such an action. The
| plaintiff sues for damages sustained by him
as an individual.
The plaintiff must show That the defend
/ ant was guilty of wrongful act or omission;
/ that the plaintiff has sustained in COnse'
/ QQELllE DA Sdl0 " AbAl-AlAA sAAI GgAAAI tANAtell
and legal damages.
| Damages are intended as competitive fol
| the repaTatiOn for injury received. Now
was the defendant guilty Of an intentional
| wrongful act? If guilty under sec. 4SZt
of the Code, which defines the selling o.
| unwhOlesOme provisions to be INSIDE
| meanOr, then as a consequence OF this &C
| of criminalify, the defendant would bC
! 81 fTba sa11frarr X
| have been done with 2 full knowledge o
| the UnsOUndneSs, knOlriRgLy. There IS nc
| proof in this case to show that the defend
| ant knew that there was anything wrong
| with the calf; but, on the contrary
| the defendant being an lsraeilte
ard living up 10 the requirements o
| his law, prOCures the person selected
by his Synagogue to inspect the calf accord
ing to the Levitical law, and that person
prOnOunces the calf in question who'esOm'
food, and be and his family partake Of 1t
and his guests, and no one is made sick b!
it except the plaintiffs who sue.
The proof further shows that the plain
tiff suffered no pecuniary loss, but ate, thu
next morning, a very hearty breakfast
never sent Tor a doctor, never bought an
medicine, but simply vOmited, as be says
from eating Of defendants calf.
The court is Of opinion that the plaintiff
| must show that the defendant was guilt.
of a wrongful act, and that he, defendant
knew it to be uusOund meat. This knOwl
edge is Indispensable (see addison OF
TOrts, SD; and that he lost pecuniarily
or lost something the count can estimat
by money, before he can recover. And In
whole proof taken together forplaintiff an
defendant fails to show such a state G
facts as required in accordance with tn
foregoing views.
Judgment will be fer the defendant v:
plaintiff.