The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1913-04-03
SOMERSET CORN CASES
CONTINUED from Page OncD

dence tending 10 support the defend
ants contention.
In order 10 give their brand o.
corn . legitimate status in the market
every can must be guaranteed undef
the Pure Food Act OF Congress OF
1905. Dealers who sell TO their Gus
toners = high grade of goods packed
and inspected in accordance with az
proved methods. and expressly guar
anteed under the Pure Food Act, " th
no defect discovered by the exercise
Of sense of sight. smell or taste, and
hotel keepers and yictualers VINO fur
nish such goods to their guests Tor
food are not liable for injuries To
such customers or guests caused b.
eating such food. though it is in fac
found 10 be poisonous. Bigclo~ =
Maine Central X. Il. CO. 1903 Maine.
81 At 396. Whatever liability Tor
damages there may be in such case
must resi- solely upon the packer who
cans the goods In view Of these
rules Of liability Tor injuries, and the
bcnificenf legislation, both Federal
and STATE. designed to protect the peo-
pie against the dangers OF impure and
unWholesome food. il is incumbent
ance AMI preeantion in their endea-
yors To select Tor canning only such
products as are entirely suitable fo}
that purpose; and when they have
manifesfly acted in good faith in re-
jcctinp any product offered under a
contract which requires - TO be suit
able for packing. their conduct should
be reviewed by the Court with every
<. 4 - f..f. -
rights OF others.
In the case al bar it is the conclus-
ion Of the Court that the evidence did
not warrant the jury in finding that
the corn raised on the plaintiffs ten
acre field Was suitable for packing
and thai the verdict against the de-
PENDANTS for rejecting the corn from
that field cannot be sustained.
But with respect to the four-acre
piece which Was on still higher
ground than the ten-acre lot. the evil
dence seems 10 Justify a different re-
suit. The defendants introduced no
evidence i'll relation To the effect OF
the frost upon the corn from that
field. but relied solely upon the owl
dence introduced by the plaintiff and
the probabilities suggested by all the
evidence in the case. The plainun
testfies that he thought there We're
very slight indications OF frost on
that field. and upon examination he
saw that the frost hadn't injured II
particle and he so informed the
defendant : inspector. Mr.. Hill, but
Hill said ii was no use TO 90 near
| it." and he never did. In the alb
sence OF anything to the contrary,
/ aside from the presumption arising
I from the severity of the frost in that
vicinity, the jury We're warranted III
/ finding the corn from this piece suit
able for canning.
The jury appears to have assessed
the damages at $62S2 per acre. or
$25l2S for four acres. II, therefore.
| the plaintiff shall remit all of the
verdict above $251.2S within thirty
days from the receipt OF the cert-
ficate of this decision by the Clerk OF
/ Courts of Somerset County, the mo-
ton for a new trial is oVerruled. II
/ he does not so remit, the motion Tor
new trial is sustained and new
trial granted.
Gardiner vs. Davis ct ais Somerset
County. Rescript Whitehouse, c. j.
/ In this action, the plaintiff seeks
/ to recover damages for an alleged
breach of contract on the part of the
defendant in refusing TO accept and
pay for quantity of sweet corn
grown by the plaintiff for the defend
ants. who We're co-partners doing bus
! mess under the firm name of the
/ Portland Packing Company. The con-
/ tract between the parties is in writing
and contains the following provision:
Each of said subscribers will, dur
ing the season OF 1911. plant with
/ sweet corn raised from seed TO be fur
nished by said Portland Packing Com
pany. at $500 per bushel. and proper
ly cultivate the quantity of land set
against his name. and no more. and
will when the corn is in a green state.
and in suitable condition for ca
ming, or at any time when ordered so
to do, gather and deliver that corn at
the company cannery al Skowhe-
gan.
The quantity of land cultivated by
the plaintif in pursuance OF the con-
tract was four acres.
1t is not in controversy that prior
to September ~. 1911, the defendants
accepted 394 bushels of corn delivered
by the plaintiff at their CannerY in
Skowhegan. and paid for the same ac-
cording TO the contract; and il Is nor
denied by the defendants that they re-
fused 10 accept the balance of 2S5
bushels raised by the plaintiff on the
land in question. In their brief state
ment of special matters of defence.
they state that "on the lith day o.
September. 1911. there was an un-
usual. severe and unreasonable fros+.
whereby the corn of the plaintiff was
frozen and rendered unsuitable for
canning purposes" They accord
ingly claim that by the terms of their
contract, they We're under no obliga-
ton to accept corn which was not IN
suitable condition for canning
The jury rendered a verdict for the
plaintiff for $10117. and the CASE
comes To this Court on the defendants
motion TO set aside the verdict a
against the evidence. There are no
exceptions pending. and there is no
dispute between he counsel - the
respective parties in relation TO the
law applicable TO the case. The sole
ouestitn hefof, the Court is one OF
fact; and that is whether the plain
tiff's corn IN question. at the time
the defendants refused - accept II.
was in a suitable condition for can
ming having refere 10 the nature
and purpose of the defendants WhG,t
enterprise and the manner in which
their canning business was neceSSar-