Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-04-01

! bitten. The burden was upon the
| plaintiff to prove that his corn was
suitable for packing. But he intro
duced no witness who had ever had
experience in packing corn, or had
ever tested the quality or condition
of frost bitten corn after it had been
/, canned.
The testimony in behalf Of the de-
| PENDANTS, in the first place, confirmed
| that of the plaintiff himself in regard
| to the severity of the frost Thursday
morning, September 14th, showing
| that water standing in vessels out Of
doors at the Skowhegan factory was
| frozen oyer and the water frozen in.
| the pipes and faucets; and four Ct the
defendants witnesses testified in SUBJ
lstance that the plaintiffs corn turned
white within two or three days after
the frost struck it.
In regard to tho effect OF frost Oh
corn used for canning purposes, the
defendant Baxter testifes that he has
been engaged in the packing business
for thirty years, with experience in all
departments of the work, and over
| sight of all the factories in. the State.
that at the ti4ac of the frost he had his
headquarters at Newport, and five
factories under his immediate super
vision; that if mature enough, FROST
bitten corn can be packed for IS and
sometimes for II hours after a frost
that if the weather was hot, it would
have To be packed sooner than II II
was lowery and cold; that in his eX-
| perience three days had been found to
be the limit in which frost-bitten corn
would be suitable for canning. He
| also teStiGes that You can't tell from
the looks of that corn where the frost
has hit it-you can't tell it from any
other corn, except from the taste,
and when corn has been struck By
! frost so that the outer husks turn
white and the inner husk is green, the
| kernel becomes bitter and flaVorless'
and when put into cans it has vat
cry, fiat appearance, and often turns
| sour.
Mr.. Bakers testimony was cor
roborated by five other witnesses
! Finally. the defendants INTRODUCED
testimony from commission merchants
to show the reputation for the hlghes-
| standard of excellence which Maine
sweet corn has sustained in the trade
and to explain the effect which the
| discovery of even few cans OF 1fost-
bitten and inedible corn inevitably ma
in depreciatng the market value ei
that brand of corn and impairing con-
fdence in the subsequent products u
the packer
In rebuttal it is insisted that the
nlaintiffs corn, rejected by the ae
! PENDANTS. had all the appearance anu
| characteristics of corn admitted TO NC
suitable for canning, and was IN DIS
good condition for canning as lhe ON
| tr loads accepted by the defendants u
tho time they refused to take the pal-
once # is also suggested by inc
plaintiff that if any of the irost-pit'eh
aorp canned by the defendants Ter
mented and became tasteless OF plttei
- ,,,6t for food, it was in the power
of the defendants to produce can u
il Mt the trial, as the best eNluehe'
| their contention that the corn was NJ
suitable for packing. but tieie
| testimony from the defenddiit9
nesses showing the ordinary eoaise
h,,siness in placing the produet u
cannery on the market, ana the nun
her bf dealers who handle the co'',
1 toforo II reaches the consumer dH0
| ;. a,naars from the evidence that (
,, - FROST bitten corn might not DC
- CON-. ar hitter for many months
.ftar Il is canned, and obviously
night not be discovered by lie eoH
sumner for many months more
NIGHT not be returned 10 the
ar COMPLAINT made in regard 10 =
| e., a vear or more and sometimes W.
,,oars after the corn was shipped iiotii
IT. factorv 1t is not claimed llldt "i'S
80 of defective corn had been r.
t,,,.red IN the defendants at the I'm
80 ~ trial in March, 1912, ana II Is
VI -, hot sufficient time had not
aIonsed after the shipment the autumn
before to justify any eNpec'''lI,' ,sa,,o
such return or complaints "o"'e
hoan made before the trial
There is no evidence tehuine &C..
sbo,, that in rejecting the pldii
corn in question, the defendants w.
octuated by any other motlVe -i''li
,-N';ae that II was unsuitable lor can
tr,, II appears that orders VIZ
-, Nv the defendants to accepI az.
- hot vas not frost bitten NJ
adod tho corn contracted LOT 10 ''i'
80 orders. and there is no eVloettes
hat there had been any fall IN ''e
market price. ,.,i,., of all
ma Aftor a careful consideration u az
,bo evidence and arguments III
col il is the opinion oil tle Co'h -
80 90 not sufficient evidence ~
'.s,.,..,,t tho conclusion rcachcu pS ~
49,, tbat the corn rejected WAS a"'s
a oT1e for canning at that time, II 80 -
oeneo ls'' on the part of the defen-
dants. .,or.fore be.
iI ne sustained; new trial granted.
Margaret NJ. spiller VS.. Frederick .,
close. Cumberland County Ne
script. Whitehouse, c. j. IT,
This is an action brought ny .ne
n,ointiff. a married woman, to recover
,,trehle. the value" of money aiiege''
70 have been lost and paid to the ae-
n