The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-01-11
PREPARING TO
TAKE AN APPEAL
EDWARDS WOOD CASE GOING TO
SUPREME COURT.
The Vital Point Involved Is One of
keenest Interest to Grain Dealers,
Especially at Duluth-Court De-
clined to Recognize Sale of Flax in
Question to the Firm.

Freeman P. Lane, attorney for Ed
wards, Wood & Co.. has returned from
Duluth and is already preparing for
the appeal in the case involving the re-
turn made to a consignor by the firm
thru it's Duluth office. The point on
which the case turns is one of gem
eral interest to grain dealers, especial
ly at Duluth, as the firms there have
made general practice of sending
returns in exactly the same manner
which the Duluth municipal court has
now held illegal. AS brought out in
the trial of the Edwards-Wood case,
one Carlson consigned to that firms
office at Duluth carload of flax. The
day it was received the market was
fiat and the firms agent, rather than
carry it over, bought it in for the firm.
High price for flax on that date was
$1.1e, but in reporting back to the
cOnsignor the firm, on account of
heavy dockage on the car, allowed a
price of $1.19k, which, less the half
cent bushel commission, gave him
$1.19, or the top of the market for his
flax. On the day following, flax went
to $1.20, at which the firm sold the
carload in question on it's own account
In the trial the prosecution urged
that the sale to the firm of Edwards,
Wood & Co. was void and conviction
was secured on the ground that the
firms agent had failed to report to
Carlson the sale at S1.20. On the
other hand the defense argued that it
was the general custom for firms on
the Duluth exchange to take over
grain consigned to them; that a proper
return had been made to Carlson and
that while the sale was not void, 1t
might be voidable but only upon the
motion Of Carlson, who had expressed
no dissatisfaction. The court, now
ever, held that the consignees could
not legally buy shipment sent to
them as agents and consequently de-
clined to consider the return made to
Carlson at S1.19h. The sale by the
firm at $1.2O was considered by the
agent of Edwards, Wood & Co.
to be a separate transaction but
the transaction which should
have been reported back to
Carlson. The court also declined to
consider the general usage and Gus
tom on the Duluth board as showing
the good faith of the defendants. It is
on these points that the appeal will be
taken. s.
incidentally the case has raised the
question as to why a general custom
on the Duluth board should have been
openly permitted to continue till the
railway and warehouse commission
thought 1t necessary to pick out one
firm and make an example of 1t by
criminal prosecutions. - Huei eAA,AA al
circumstances state authorities have
issued warnings before beginning
prosecution and such warnings have
| been generally respected where a
violation of the law was without
criminal intent. Some significance Is
also attached to the fact that Carlson
had never expressed any grievance
and that an attorney for well-known
bucketshop concern was in frequent
| conferences with the prosecuting Off
Gals, both before and during the trial
Charles Moore of Tope, N. D., who
has been mentioned as the complain
ing witness against Edwards, Wood &
Co., has declined to sign the com
plants and has made a statement that
all his dealings with the firm have
been thoroly satisfactory. -.