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

| Der, 1921. term OF the Waldo Su- 4
preine judicial Court. The case was
carried to the Law Court on a mo-
ton alleging that the verdict was
against the law and the evidence IN
the case, and no exceptions to GER
tain rulings of the Trial Justice and
also on his ruling in excluding GER
tain evidence which was offered by
the defence. The matter was very
fully argued at the June, 1922 term
of the Law Court, elaborate briefs
being submitted by both sides. The
case was argued by the plaintiff by
Carroll n. Perkins of the law firm of
Perkins * Weeks, and for the de-
PENDANT by Ernest l.. Mclean of the
law firm of Mclean, FOgg Il South
ard.
The opinion of Judge Spear is a
most exhaustive one and will do
!. much toward clarifying the uncer-
tainty and confusion which has here
tofore surrounded the bOrax ques-
ton. The opinion points out that the
sole complaint of the plaintiff is that
the Chemicals which he bought were
not suitable as fertilizer for potatoes,
but contained borax in sufficient
quantities to prevent termination OF
seed potatoes, and kill the young
presence Of borax was the sole cause
| of his failure to get a crop. 1t states
that the only issue is whether borax
| was present in sufficient quantities to
diminish his crop as complained by
the plaintiff, and that the burden was
on the plaintiff to establish this con-
tentiOn.
Historically, it appears from the
| testimony Of DIR. Woods that in the
spring of 1919, when the chemicals
were purchased, the fact that boraX
was deleterious to the termination of
| potato seed or injurious to the plants
was entirely unsupported either by
the manufacturers of fertilizer or by
agricultural and chemical experts.
On the contrary. it was supposed
| that boron might bebeneticial and the
first experiments undertaken by DIR.
| Woods were for the purpose of find
ing If there might not be beneficial
effect from the addition of boraX.
Lacks Expert Opinion
In 1919 also it appears that neither
expert nor grower had any definite
| knowledge which would enable them
,, to detect the symptoms Of borax poi
soninG. All knowledge. therefore,
with reference to boraX,was acquired
subsequent to the spring Of 1919. and
all DR.. Woods experiments and those
of the other experts were made sub
seQuent to that time.
The opinion reveals that the maxi
! mum amount of boron proved by the
plaintiff was 6.6 pounds to the acre,
and that it was incumbent upon the
plaintiff to prove that the pre- of
/ that amount was the cause of the in
jury to his crop. The only evidence
on this point was the statement of
Dr.. Woods to the effect that in
quantities of more than three pounds
per acre borax had been found to be
deleterious and increasingly so as the
amount was increased. so that ordi-
| narily 20 pounds would practically
stop crop.
The Law Court finds that there
was no evidence in the case support
ing this opinion but that it was con-
! tradicted by Dr. Woods own expert
ments conducted at Presque Isle in
the year 1919, the experiment being
conducted in the year when the
claimed borax trouble was expert
enced and in the immediate vicinity
where the injuries claimed to be
produced by it We're most severe. Ac-
W! uIDC W Ifol. W f'ptS teStlt1oHN.
that experiment showed that IL
hounds of horaX to the acre slightly
! increased the Weld. while % mounds
, of hOraX to the acre slightly de-
creased the yield. the increase and
decrease. however in each Instance
being. according to DIR. Woods.
within experimental error"
Referring to the qualification of
DR.. Woods that the method of plant
ing used in this experiment was diff
ferent from that employed by the
farmers. the opinion states:
"The bulletin soffectually CONTRA
dicted the attempted explanation
that the difference was due to the
method of distribution. Notwith
standing the statement that three
pounds to the acre would injure n
crop. it nevertheless remains that the
only evidence based upon experiment
was that six or even seven pounds Of