Blitz v. James

Qeasok, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The first exception of the appellant was taken to the refusal of the Court below, to permit him to offer proof to the jury that the lumber, which he purchased of the appellees, had been inspected in Washington City upon its arrival there, and, upon that inspection, had fallen short twenty-six hundred feet, some of the boards measuring one foot, and others two feet less than was represented by the inspector’s mark. The lumber was purchased in the city of Baltimore by the appellant, and was shipped to him at Washington by his agent, Willis. The purchase and delivery having been made in Baltimore, the purchaser was bound to know the Public Local Law of that city, relating to the inspection and sale of lumber, even if he Avere not acquainted Avith the custom among lumber merchants there.

The 481st section of the Public Local LaAA of Baltimore provides that “ whenever the buyer or seller of any lumber or timber shall feel himself aggrieved by the measurement of any inspector, the buyer shall appoint one of the licensed inspectors, and the seller another, and they two shall select a third person to act as umpire, who shall be well acquainted with the kind of lumber or timber to be resurveyed, and not a licensed inspector, and the three persons so appointed shall remeasure and mark said lumber or timber, and the decision shall be final.” Upon the arrival of the lumber at Washington, and the appellant being dissatisfied with the inspection and measurement previously made, it was his duty, under the section of the law above referred to, to have resorted to the means provided by that law, for a correction of the previous inspection. This was his only remedy. The inspection in Washington, and the fact of the lumber having fallen short under that inspection, were altogether immaterial facts, which could have no bearing or effect upon the issue to be tried, and the Court below was right in not permitting them to be considered ²⁶⁸ by the jury. Had there been an offer of proof that the lumber had fallen short in the number of boards, or that the inspection marks had been changed or obliterated, it would have been admissible.

No such offer was, however, made, although the bill of lading, and invoice of the lumber, as well as the tale of the inspector, who had inspected the lumber a short time previously, were sent to the appellant, a few days after the sale. The second exception was taken to the granting of the appellees’ prayer, and the rejection of the appellant’s two prayers. The prayer of the appellees was correct in all respects, except, perhaps, in putting to the jury the finding of the custom among lumber dealers in Baltimore City, without there being any evidence in the cause to show that the appellant, who was not a resident of the city, had knowledge of it. But, as the appellant, as we have stated, was bound to know the Public Local Law of the place at which he was making his purchase, and which required