The Wisconsin tobacco reporter. (Edgerton, Wis.) 1877-1950, 1907-11-22

Failure to accept crop of 1905 tobac-
CO, for which Roe & Brictson, Stoughton
tobacco dealers, contracted, Roy Grena-
walt of Orfordville brought an action at
law which was tried in the circuit court
at Madison last week In stating the
case to the jury the attorneys interested
explained their case as follows:
Mr.. Cunningham stated that the de-
PENDANTS, through their agent, made a
contract with the plaintiff for his 1906
crop of tobacco and that he paid $25
down. He said the crop was to be deliv-
cred in the city of Stoughton in January
or some time soon after. Mr.. Cunning
ham said that after the contract had
been made, Mr.. Brictson and the agent
called on Mr.. Grenawalt and told him
that the tobacco would be accepted on a
lower price, making the declaration that
price of tobacco had gone down. He
stated that Mr.. Grenawalt refused to
sell the tobacco at less than the contract
price and that upon such refusal Mr..
Brictson demanded the return of the S25.
Mr. Clancy outlined the defense. He
said that after the transaction between
the agent for the defendants and the
plaintiff had been made, Mr.. Brictson
called on Mr.. Grenawalt to inspect the
tobacco. Mr.. Clancy stated that Mr..
Brictson found the tobacco in bad con-
dition and not up to requirements in &C.
cordance with the contract. The attor-
ney said that Mr.. Brlctson refused to
accept the crop and that Mr.. Grenawalt
then offered to sell him the tobacco at a
reduced price. He said that upon the
demand of Mr.. Brictson the plaintiff has
failed to refund the $25 paid in advance
on the contract by the defendants. Be-
sides denying breach of contract, Mr..
Clancy said that the defendants also
will seek to recover the $25.
The plaintiff sued for the difference
between the contract price and the
amount for which he finally sold the
crop. Deducting the $25 paid down, the
plaintiff claims that he was further dam
aged to the extent of $2l8.05.
The taking of testimony occupied two
days, including 81. G. Arthur, who acted
as inspector for the buying firm, and also
the dealer who afterwards bought the
crop. The former witness said he ex-
amined four bundles and that he found
in them filler, trash and fat stems-to-
bacco unfit for packing. The jury found:
That the tobacco in question on jan
uary 81, 1907, was in sound packing con-
dition with all trash and damaged to-
bacco excluded.
That on January 81, 1907, the plaintiff
did not agree to release the defendants
from the contract for the purchase of
the tobacco or return to them the S25
Maid IN the Durchase price
Attorney j. j. Cunningham OF James
Vile moved for judgment on the verdict.
The matter was held open.
The crop of tobacco raised in the
United STATES the past season falls 81
2l6,OOO pounds short of the production
in 1906. This statement is made by the
Crop Reporting Board of the Depart
ment of Agriculture, based on returns
received from its field agents up to No
vember lst, on which the Department
bases preliminary estimate. While the
crop has fallen off, due no doubt to un-
favorable weather conditions, scarcity OF
labor in various sections, and curtailing
of crop in regions affected by the organ
izations seeking to boost prices, the
yield per acre has increased 1 1 pounds.
The Department estimates the average
yield per acre during the past season as
1858 pounds, as compared with the final
estimate of 1872 pounds in 1906, 815.6
pounds in 1905 and an eight year aver
age of 1859 pounds. These estimates
cover the entire crop of the United
States. Of the cigar leaf type, the fol-
lowing is given as the yield per acre:
State 1907 1906 1905