18 Report of State Board of Horticulture. 



HORTICULTURE LAWS UPHELD BY THE COURT. 



As was inevitable, the strict enforcement of the horticul- 

 ture law has met with opposition in two cases. The Commis- 

 sioners and inspectors have been sued for damages for en- 

 forcing the law. But in both cases they were completely 

 exonerated and the law upheld. 



The first case was that of Sellwood vs. Reid, and grew out 

 of the refusal of Mr. T. A. Sellwod, of Milwaukie, to spray his 

 orchard when ordered to do so by Commissioner Reid of the 

 first district. After repeated warnings and long delay Mr. Reid 

 ordered County Inspector A. J. Lewis, of Clackamas County, 

 to enter the premises of Mr. Sellwood and cut down the trees. 

 After thirty-four trees had been destroyed Mr. Sellwood ap- 

 peared and agreed to spray the remainder. He then brought 

 suit against Mr. Reid to cover damages. The case was tried 

 before Judge McBride, who in charging the jury said there 

 were three points in this case especially to be considered. 

 First, was the plaintiff legally served with notices; second, 

 were the trees infested, and third, were the trees sprayed in 

 conformity with the notices. It was fully proven that notices 

 were duly served, that the trees were infested, they were not 

 sprayed, and the jury found accordingly. 



The second case was that of Broetje vs. Deich, and grew 

 out of coal oiling by Inspector Deich, of Multnomah County, of 

 eight boxes of wormy and scaly apples being offered for sale 

 by Mr. Broetje. Mr. Broetje brought suit to restrain the in- 

 spector from further interference with his sales of fruit, 

 claiming that the fruit was not infested, also that the State 

 had no right to destroy his fruit without compensation. The 

 case was tried before Judge Frazer and it was proven that the 

 fruit was badly infested with San Jose scale and the larvae 

 of codling moth. The judge held that the law plainly and 

 expressively prohibited the sale of such fruit, and he decided 

 the case against the plaintiff. 



These cases have been watched with great interest by fruit 

 growers in general, and these decisions give general satis- 

 faction. The establishment of the rights of the inspectors to 

 proceed under the law will make it much easier in the future 

 to accomplish our work. 



