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


frost bitten as the plaintiffs corn was,
according to his own testimony, is not
suitable for canning purposes
The defendants field-inspector, Mr..
HILL testifies as to a conversation he
had with the plaintiff on Monday after
the frost. when the plaintiff endeavored
to explain how much his corn was
frost bitten. He said 1T was struck
lightly, struck the leaves some " . and
he wanted to know when we wanted it
hauled. and | told him We didn't want
it before Wednesday anyway, and that
hcfcre that time would come over
there and see his corn > The next
day | went over to Mi. Trafton's, W.
went through that piece. 1t had
he general appearance of corn that
had been struck by the frost In
some cases there were leaves that were
merely killed az the ends, others half
way, and others clear down to the
stalk, and even traces, marks Of frost,
down on the stalks q And in cases
like that where the frost reaches down
in that way, it strikes the ear also. !
found the ears marked more or less.
He further states that he had received
orders from Mr.. Chute, the foreman of
the SkoWhegau factory, not to take any
more frost-bittcn corn after Monday
and after going over the PLAINTIFF
field and Inspecting the corn, he in.
formed Mr.. Trafton that under the
orders he had received he had got 10
re ject- his piece of corn"
The defendant Clinton L. Baxter tes-
tides that he had experience in pack
-, G1Il nf HAT SLIGHTLY
Itouched by the frost, 50 that the flags
We're frosted and some Of the ears Of
the corn frosted one or tYo inches
down on the husks, when he had kept
the light-frosted COIN separate from
that which was more heavily frosted;
and the result was the corn ran very
uneven" While all of It was not tee
same, some of it would be fat and
tasteless, and had Il very uneven APP
pcarance on opening the cans; one can
would open very good and another can
Indifferent. If a dozen cans were OPEN
cd, the corn would be found to run III
different ways; and it caused them Il
great deal of trouble. He further tes-
tifies as follows. After we shipped II
10 market, we had to take it back The
most marked complaints came the fell
lowing summer around July: and some
of it we didn't get back until nearly
two years afterward When it came
back. some of it was sour and it was
so inferior that we had TO dump 4
great part of it, and We lost practically
all of il 8 . . Some Of ii looks curdly,
but not like the hard-frosted corn
where practically all Of 1T is the same,
but this would be only few cans mix
Cd in " hich caused the trouble in each
case. Some of it would lie sloppy and
taste flat,-it wouldn't be sweet. From
his experience in packing corn from
fields that were touched with frost 50
that the flags over a portion OF the
field are frost-btten to such an extent
that the general appearance OF the tielG
changes when the sun strikes it. he
should say such corn was not suitable
for canning, four or five days, or even
three or four days after the frost. He
states that he had special experience
with different fields of frust-bitten corr
at North Arson in 1888, when there
was a heavy frost, the severity of
which was not equaled in succeeding
years until l9l1; that they kept the
corn that came from the fields that
aratc end in different grades from the
corn thai came from the fields that
were struck heavily by FROST and that
to his knowledge the lightly-frosted
corn from fields that had been kept
separate came back to them IN the con-
d:ticn described ~ him as unmerehant
able corn.
Seven other witnesses gave evidence
tending to support the defendants
contention.
In order TO give Their brand of corn 4
legitimate status in the market, every
can must be guaranteed under the Pure
Food Act of Congress of 1906. Dealers
who sell to their customers high
grade OF goods, packed and inspected
in accordance with approved methods,
and expressly guaranteed under the
Pure Food Act with no defect discov-
cred by the exercise of the sense of
sight, smell or,taste, and hotel keepers
and victualers who furnish such goods
to their guests for food, are not liable
for injuries to such customers or guests
caused by eating such food, though it
is in fact found to be poisonous. Bige-
low VS.. Maine Central +. r. Co, l93
Maine: ~ All. 80. w lldtcNcf iidpliilS
for damages there may Ice ii such a
case, must rest solely upon the pacte"
who cans the goods. In view of these
rules of liability for injuries, and the
heniacent legislation, both Federal ana
State. designed to protect the people
against the dangers of impure and I'M
wholesome food, it is incumbent upon
packers to exercise great vigilance AND
precaution in their endeaVors to select
for canning only such products as are
entirely suitable for that purpose: and
when they have manifestly acted IN
good faith IN rejecting any produce
offered under n contract which requires
! it to he suitable for packing, their con-
duct should be reviewed by the. Court
with every consideration consistent
with the rights of others.
In the case at bar, it is the conclus-
| ion of the Court that the evidence dlo
| not warrant the jury in finding thai
| the corn raised on the plaintiff ten
| acre field was suitable for packing, anf
| that the verdict against the defend
ants for rejecting the corn from that
field cannot be sustained.
Il ', ~ 60. ln "a "a ri