12 



court, — to be exact, just four. Three of them we have won, 

 and the other, no decision has as yet been rendered on, 

 though it was tried two months ago. 



One of the cases might be of interest to you. There is 

 a provision in the law that no mark shall be put on the bar- 

 rel which is inconsistent with or more conspicuous than the 

 marks required by law. One firm we had to prosecute had 

 a stencil made in which the principal word, the word that 

 struck you most, looking at the barrel, was the word 

 "selected" and down a little further on the barrel in smaller 

 tj'pe was "ungraded". Above "selected" was "extra"; 

 so the complete stencil read "extra, selected, ungraded". 

 We claimed the word "selected" and the word "ungraded" 

 are two words that are mutually exclusive in the English 

 language. Apples can be ungraded or selected, but they 

 cannot be both at the same time. 



Counsel for the defense had a very interesting argument 

 that there were a number of different kinds of ungraded 

 apples, — poor ungraded, medium graded and this partic- 

 ular brand of ungraded which was called "extra, selected, 

 ungraded." 



The Court did not look with favor on the contention, 

 and we won the ease. 



Now, one very important matter, one rather interesting 

 matter we have had to meet is the relation of the Massachu- 

 setts law to the so called Sulzer bill, the Federal apple grad- 

 ing law. That was passed in 1912 before there were any 

 state apple grading laws. The Federal apple grading law 

 is not a compulsory measure. It is simply an optional meas 

 ure. The most important section of the law savs : "Any 

 person who packs apples under this law may so mark them" 

 but nobody has to pack under it. 



Now, after some of the packers in certain sections of 

 the state found that the Massachusetts law had teeth in it, 

 they thought they could get around the Massachusetts law 

 by packing the same kind of stuff, but marking them under 

 the Federal law. 



