April 1, 1914. 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



365 



POEL AND ARNOLD'S JUDGMENT AFFIRMED ON 

 APPEAL. 



I\ tlu" suit brought in 1911 by Messrs. Pocl ami Arnold, the 

 * New York crude rubber importers, against the Brunswick- 

 lialke-ColIender Co., of Muskegon, manufacturers of billiard 

 tables, the judgment in favor of plaintiflfs has been aflirmed 

 with costs by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. 

 The action was to recover damages for the breach of an 

 executory contract for the purchase of about twelve tons of 

 Upriver Fine Para rubber, the principal questions litigated 

 on the trial and appeal being whether the plaintiflfs had estab- 

 lished a contract valid within the statute of frauds, the au- 

 thority of defendant's agent to make the contract and con- 

 cerning the measure of damages. 



A Mr. Kelly represented tlie plaintiffs' firm in selling rub- 

 ber, his negotiations having been with a Mr. Rogers, the 

 purchasing agent of the defendants, with an office at their 

 Long Island City factory. Prior to the transaction in litiga- 

 tion, Rogers had negotiated seven purchases of rubber by the 

 •defendants from the plaintiffs' firm through the said Kelly, 

 between November 24, 1909, and March 31, 1910. 



On April 2, 1910, Rogers made an offer of $2.42 per pound 

 foi- 12 tons, deliverable from January to June, 1911, in equal 

 monthly shipments. This offer was acknowledged same day 

 and was accepted by plaintiffs' contract of the 4th, being 

 further confirmed by defendants' order sheet of the 6th. In 

 the opinion of the court the parties then considered the 

 transaction closed, their minds having met on the terms of 

 the contract. In the seven prior sales of rubber, plaintiffs 

 had forwarded to the defendants contracts in the same form 

 as in this case. The rubber embraced in these seven contracts 

 was delivered to the defendants and paid for by them. 



On January 7, 1911. tlie defendants wrote a letter to the 

 plaintiffs, which, in the opinion of the court, supplied any 

 omission in the previous evidence. This letter, among other 

 points, stated that the defendants had no knowledge of 

 Rogers' action as to effecting the transaction in litigation, 

 until his voluntary statement within the preceding few weeks, 

 adding that they would not recognize this or any transactions 

 entered into with Rogers without their knowledge or au- 

 thority. This letter clearly recognizes tliat a transaction had 

 been effected, while the defendants merely disclaimed Rogers' 

 authority to effect same. 



In further support of the autiiority of Rogers to make this 

 contract in litigation, Mr. .-Vrnold, one of the plaintiffs, testi- 

 fied that prior to any of the purchases Mr. Troescher, secretary 

 and treasurer of the defendant company, had informed him 

 "that Mr. Rogers did the buying for the company." Kelly 

 testified as to a like statement made to him. It was also 

 proved that Rogers had made four contracts for fourteen 

 tons of rubber with the New York Commercial Co. for the 

 defendants, all of which had been received and paid for by 

 them. The court expressed the opinion that it was too late 

 for the defendant to be heard to question Rogers' authority 

 to make the contract in litigation. 



.-\bout two tons of rubber arrived at New York on January 

 24, 1911, but the defendants refused to accept it. It was then 

 sold on January 26 at the market price of $1.27 per pound. 

 The plaintiffs elected to regard the defendants' letter of Jan- 

 uary 7, 1911, and the rejection of the delivery, as constituting 

 a total breach of the contract and on February 1, 1911, com- 

 menced this suit. 



In each of the five months succeeding January, tenders 

 were made to the defendants of the rubber specified in the 

 contract, and in each instance advice given of sale, the de- 

 fendants being notified the first month that plaintiffs would 

 hold them liable for all damage of any kind caused by their 

 breach of contract. 



The concluding words of the court's decision are: 

 "We lind no error to the substantial prejudice of the de- 

 fendants. It follows that the judgment should 1)e affirmed 

 with costs." 



ACTION OK ACID MINE WATER ON INSULATION 

 OF ELECTRIC CONDUCTORS. 



IN mining work it often happens that an electric conductor is 

 exposed to the action of moist air and acid water. While 

 all conductors used in mines are not insulated, some are; this 

 course being necessary whenever multiple-conductor cables are 

 used. The Bureau of Mines has been investigating the action 

 of acid water on the various materials used for insulation, this 

 task having been performed by H. H. Clark and L. C. Ilsley, 

 whose preliminary report has been published. 



The report deals under various heads with the selection and 

 application of the acid water, the dimensions of conductors, the 

 materials tested, the testing equipment and the results of the 

 tests. 



Seeing tlie difficulty of obtaining uniiorm samples of mine 

 water (owing to changes effected by rainfall and other causes), 

 it was decided to use two artificial solutions, both to contain 

 sulphuric acid in equal amounts, but only one to contain iron 

 sulpliate. Solution No. 1 contained 262.35 grains per gallon of 

 free sulphuric acid. Solution No. 2, in addition to the same 

 amount of acid, contained 699.6 grains per gallon ot ferrous 

 sulphate. It was hoped thus to define the action of the sulphate. 

 The insulation was to be sprinkled witli the solution, time being 

 allowed for evaporation between each application ; while the 

 conductors tested would contain the smallest amount of material 

 consistent with satisfactory results. 



Four kinds of insulating material were tested — -Thirty per 

 cent. Para rublier, standard varnished cambric, special varnished 

 cambric, Icad-shcathed paper. The dates of measurement were 

 nineteen in number, between December 30, 1910, and January 14, 

 1913. The temperature of the water was 24 degs. C. and the 

 insulation resistances were as below : 



IXSUr..\TION RESIST.\NXE IN MEGOHMS. 



Rubber. 



Standard 

 Cambric. 



Special 

 Cambric. 



Dec. 30, 1910. 

 Jan. 14, 1913. 



Tank 



1 



46,300 



22,800 



Tank 



49,100 

 22,400 



Tank 



1 

 2,400 



3.6 



Tank Tank 

 2 1 



2,085 1,340 

 1.9 42.0 



Tank 



2 



1,490 



16.5 



Lead-sheathed 

 Paper. 



A 



Tank Tank 



1 2 



750,000 74,300 



795.200 67.200 



(Progressive decrease of the insulation resistance shown in 

 original table with dates of tests.) Tests with lead-sheathed 

 paper commenced March 11, 1911. 



Tlie samples under test were submerged in water at least 

 24 hours before the measurements were taken. The rubber 

 samples when first immersed had a good weatherproof finish, but 

 liy March 1,t, 1912. the weatherproof covering was practically de- 

 stroyed. It appeared to deteriorate most rapidly at those points 

 where the acid solutions evaporated. 



.A. series of high potential tests was made, as a result of 

 which the authors state: "The rulAer insulation undoubtedly 

 withstood better than the cambric and special insulations the 

 treatment accorded to all. The percentage of decrease in insula- 

 tion was far less in the case of the rubber samples than in the 

 case of either the cambric or the special samiiles. and at the end 

 of the test insulation resistance of the ruliber samples was 

 comparatively high (more than 20.000 megohms). The break- 

 down voltage of the rubber insulation held up well also. The 

 cambric samples were the most affected by the treatment, for 

 although both cambric and special samples decreased in insula- 

 tion resistance to less than 2 per cent, of their original values. 

 the breakdown strength of the special samples was well main- 

 tained throughout the test, whereas all but one of the cambric 

 samples broke down on high potential during the test." 



