The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1907-03-02
Infected Fruit Can Not be Sent
Out Of the State
YAKIMA CASE DECIDES QUESTION
GROWER SUES COMMISSION FOR
DESTROYING APPLES AND
is BEATEN.

he al law VI ehS oeS@eS
has been Upheld by Judge H. B. Rib
of the superior court.
He gave a verdict in favor OF the
defendants in the case of XIV. Shat
ford against State Horticultural Com
missioner F. A. Huntley and County
Horticultural Commissioner J. M.
Brown of Yakima and placing the costs
! upon the plaintiff.
In the course of his remarks Judge
Rigg said that the only fault he found
| with the defendants. the officers of
| the law, was that they put the county
| to too much expense in sorting the ap-
| pies that Stafford had prepared for
shipment; they should have been de-
strOyed without sorting.
The decision of the court rested
| upon the facts in the case as pro-
duced by testimony given at the hear
ing Wednesday and Thursday by the
large number of witnesses called for
both sides. BY this decision the fruit
inspectors of the state have the power
to enforce the horticultural law and
| can destroy any infected fruit they
find in the possession of any person
in their jurisdiction.
Decided on Demurrer.
The court had previously decided
on demurrer that the law was con-
stitutional and that the case should
come to trial. When the suit was
| brought the allegation was set forth
that the men destroying the fruit act
/ ed without authority of the law. The
answer of the defendants was to the
! effect that they had the authority
Then the plaintiff demurred to the
answer and it was on this demurrer
| that decision as to the right of the
officers to destroy fruit was sustained
! and the case put on docket for trial
as to fact
! From the time the first witness went
on the stand Wednesday it appeared
that the plaintiff had little grounds for
action against the officers. While
| Stafford admitted that his fruit was
| infected he did not admit that the in
lection was sufficient to render it
| harmful to the fruit interests of the
state. He went on the contention that
the state has no right to attempt to
prevent him from selling infected fruit
outside the state.
The witnesses called to testify in
| behalf of Stafford were the following:
Leonard Talbert. Fred E. Thompson. J.
M. Perry. o. P. Sewell. Daniel Barbee
There were number of witnesses
who were not called for the plaintiff
All these men did not believe that the
| fruit was infected to such an extent
that it would be injurious to the state.
| Paul G. Kruger and Orlando Beck were
also summoned for the plaintiff, but
| they were not called to testify.
Decision Approved.
The decision is approved ny the vast
majority of the fruit raisers of the
valley. They believe in stringent in
spectiOn law to protect them from
those orchardists who refuse to take
| the common precautions to get rid
of the fruit pests.
1t is probable that an appeal will be
taken to the supreme court of the
state
At the close of court State Horti-
cultural Commissioner Huntley was
seen, and he was much pleased with
the decision. "Of course. he said,
1.-The case will probably be appealed;
but that is what we want We want
the ruling of the highest court in the
matter, for the question is one of
great Importance to all fruit growers
and shippers. We believe, however.
that we have established all that we
claimed and expect that if any appeal
is taken the decision of Judge Riggs
court will be sustained"
Mr. Huntley was asked if he thought
there was any likelihood of the matter
being taken out of the state courts
and carried into the jurisdiction of
the United States as a matter affect
ing interstate commerce.
No. answered the commissioner.
because the fruit was never billed by
the railroad. hence it was not legally
accepted by them. The fruit was seiz-
ed before it became freight matter
and so was entirely within the juris-
dlctlon OF the state. We have all the
points OF law on our side, and think
we will get a definite ruling backing
up the action of the inspectors in the
case