The state chronicle., 1892-01-06

Office at Oxford through no fault OF
the defendants, and our witnesses
were there to prove it whenever
we had the opportunity to do 50.
The unfairness of Mr.. Robinson's
statement is manifest. H will
hardly deny that in cross examina-
ton Of his inspector he admitted
that it was the custom ofthe depart
ment to allow other manufacturing
companies to ship their goods and
tag them afterward and it was done,
and the witness failed to name a
single instance in which the depart
ment refused such permission to
other companies.
Again Mr.. Robinson says: "The
issues as to the character and COM
position Of the fertilizers were not
tried. it being considered unneces-
sary to consume time by offering
testimony upon them when his
Honor's opinion was against the
plaintiff on the first issue, which
found against the plaintiff would
end the case"
This statement is true as far as
it goes, and if Mr.. Robinson had
stopped here I could not complain;
nor do l see what right he has to
complain of the defendants because
these Issues were not tried. We
went to the trial fortified with eyi-
dence to try this, as well as any
other aspect of the case, and ex-
pected, too, with confidence. a YER
dict in our favor.
But Mr.. Robinson proceeds
further now, in a newspaper card,
to try this branch of the case upon
the pleadings and his own bare
assertion that the plaintiff had "suf-
ficient evidence" His bare asser-
tion ought to have little weight in
a newspaper article or elsewhere
after his utter failure to prove the
sworn allegations in his complaint
above quoted. Allegations may be
easily made, but when proof is
required the rub comes. Mr..
Robinson very greatly magnifes
what the complaint says and seems
to think the proof is of little ccnse-
quence. He says: "The complaint
asserted positively that the sixty
one bags of fertilizers made by
the Durham Company, and seized
in Oxford, were not up to
claim, and considerably below the
, guaranteed value. The answer
, filed did not positively deny this al
legation, but stated that as to this
al e cation (to-wit, the quality Of its
fer,ilizer), the defendant had no
, knowledge or information to form
! a belief. The issue was raised in
this way" Now Mr.. Robinson
has evidently forgotten what he al.
legged in his complaint, and that he
q made this allegation second hand
> himself, and as based on an alleged
analysis "made by the chem
\ ist Of the plaintiff, and his com
4 plant qualified the allegation 6 as
plaintiff is info, med by such chem
4 ist and believes He. says now
= "The complaint asserted positively
4 but as just shown, the record doe
> not bear out his newspaper asser
r ton, and his argument based on it
le falls to the ground. The allegation
b. was based on an alleged analyst
n by Mr. II. B. Battle, the Stat
e. Chemist, at the making of whic1
|e nobody representing the defen
,e dants was present, and of tn
: accuracy of which the defendant
had no knowledge and informatio
IN sufficient to form belief, and there
At fore qualified the answer according
x ly. We may be pardoned for relu,
:" tance on our part to swear to tn
ID accuracy of Mr.. Battles analysis
i especially since what We know
n some of them and his performance
he in regard 10 the Durham Fertilizt
O. Company. have not sought col
: troversy with Mr.. Battle in tt
r. newspapers or elsewhere; but shou]