The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1911-03-21

The Supreme Court Yesterday DC
cided a ease upholding the law which
protects the farmer IN buying couon
seed meal. The case arose IN Pltt
county and was appealed TO the Su-
preme Court from the Superior Court
of Pitt county.
The law requires that all cotton
seed meal. whether - be used as
fertilizer or as feed. shall be Inspected
and the bag or sack shall have plainly
branded on ii or on A tag attached
to il, the following data: ]. Cotton
seed meal with brand: 2, Weight Of
package; g. Ammonia or nitrogen; AMI
4th. name ana address OF m~ahutac-
turer. If the cotton seed meal is sold
to a manufactures for use in making
fertilizers, il is not necessary to brand
it or attach q tag.
IN this case. State W. Cotton Oil
Co, the southern OIL Company MAS
indicted for sellin~ cotton SEED meat
to q farmer without having The tags
with this data attached. Chief JUS
.3ce Clark writes the opinion for the
Court and he states. Rev. 3942-39tS
contains a careful and comprehensive
scheme to protect the public from the
sale Of worthless fertilizers and iniuri-
/ Gus food. The most efficient method
OF insuring this protection is the re-
cuirement therein that the contents O.
each package must be shown ~ u
label or tag. the requirement. Of "a
small tax and the certificate that II
has been paid is simuiv incidental ana
to provide a mean for executing the
law by proper inspection, etc
Rev. 1856 MAKE a violation or
these sections subject to a penalty OF
SO for each separate bag. barre or
package sold. or offered Tor sale, or
removed, to be recovered by any per
49, I. ~>n1- -,. fA- tho - W 'IbG
evidence was full and complete that
the bags of cotton seed meal had been
sold without these tags with the re-
qutred data being attached. Tire OH
company introduced into evidence a
letter from the Agricultural Depart
Iment. that il would not be necessary
Ito stamp tbs name OF tie uut
turer on the tax tags Of 1909. ih1
lCOurt states that even II this was any
excuse for the cotton Oil comDanE 10
violate the plain letter OF the law as
TO stamping the name Of the manu-
l~facturer on the tags, II did not re-
INeve them from having a tag attached
stating the weigh. and contents OF
the package as required by law. And
the Court further states that the fact
that the purchaser bought thc cotton
seed meal BY exchanging a ton OF
seed for it. dos not prcFcn' IL from
being q sale.
The defendant also raised the ques-
ton tina: the statute was u~nccnstitu-
ttional because it permits anyone -
sue and recover q penalty when tEc
law is violated in addition TO makinG
lit a niiSdeneanor. The Supreme
iCourt says The Constitutional author
iity Of the General Assembly TO aid
lin the enforcement Of the law By
author:zinS popular actions. or qo;
tam actions AS they are sometimes
called, in which the penalty TO be
recovered Is given IN whole or in part
to anyone who snail sue for the
same was fully discussed and sus-
tanned in Sutton IS. Phillips. lis y.
e.. 502." The judgment OF the. lower
court imposing a tine OF $50 on tins
Cotton Oil Company for selling cotton
se.d meal rho having ta-S at
!tacied showing rs weight, etc, 5 af-
G5mea.