Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-03-03

borax per acre did not injure seed,
plants or the crop"
Borax Beneficial
referring to the experimental evil
lenre upon which DR.. Woods stated
his opinion to be based, the court
concludes:
when the evidence upon this
point is analysed every test as to the
quantity of bOraX which will do in
jury is eliminated except the Pressure
Isle experiment which shows that 6.6
pounds per acre is beneficial rather
than otherwise"
Referring to the other claimed sym
toms of borax poisoning, the preser-
walton of the seed and the bright
golden yellow on the margin of the
foliage. the opinion finds that the
evidence established that none of
these symptoms were present in this
case.
In concluding its opinion on de-
PENDANTS motion that the verdict was
contrary to the law and the evidence
in the case and should therefore be
set aside. the Law Court says:
''There is a great deal of opinion
evidenced in this case attributing
failure of this particular crop to
borax poisoning. but such evidence
is entitled to weight only when it is
fortified by established facts and is
consistent with probability and rea-
son. As before shown, the eStab-
lished facts in this case clearly prove
that &C. pounds of bOraX per ton, or
per acre. in fertilizer. is not de-
leterious to plants. We are Of the
opinion that the motion should be
sustained"
Although a number Of exceptions
We're argued. only two are taken up
in the opinion, and only one of these
two is considered at any length. With
reference to the first exception con-
sidered. the court says:
"In passing. it may not be I'M
proper to add that a proper inter
probation was given to the meaning
and application of r. S. Chap. 80,
Sec. l., which provides that for the
purposes of this chapter. an article
shall be deemed to be adulterated
X X X in case of commercial fertil-
izer x X X if it contains any ma
terial deleterious to growing plants
Under that clause of the statute is
presented the only issue in this case.
The Court held that 'deleterious
meant deleterious matter in such
quantity as to be deleterious to
growing plants and instructed the
jury that the statute was NAHUM
prohibitum and applied regardless
Of scienter on the part of the de-
PENDANTS. The instruction was cor
rect"
The second exception, and the one
discussed with great care in the
opinion. grew out of the exclusion Of
the following offer of evidence:
Defendant offers evidence of va
rious other farmers tending to
prove that such farmers, using
chemicals on farms located in the
town of Troy and vicinity, purchased
from the defendants in 1919. and
coming out of the same mass, and
combined by them in the same pro-
portions. and using the same amount
of potatoes, applying 700 pounds
per acre to one ton per acre.-these
figures being given as the equivalent
of mixed goods. that is, a weight of
81 II pounds being equal to 100
produced crops ranging from 2OU
bushels per acre to 800 bushels per
acre"
Should Admit Evidence
The opinion points out that this
evidence was not offered to prove
that the chemicals would produce a
crop or to prove their value as
fertilizer. but to prove that the pres
ence of borax did not render the
mixture deleterious. To prove that
the presence of from 5 to 6.6 pounds
of borax to the ton was not practi-
cally destructive of growing plants
the opinion continues:
''The only way to determine
whether any substance has dele
terious effect is to try it. Under this
principle the plaintiff was permitted
to offer evidence tending to show
that borax in some quantities was
deleterious. Without objection he |
expert testimony to show
that. from their reading. observa-