USVI Public Records

Document text

ed or attempted to cheat their cane de- liverers out of their just dues. FThe Plaintiffs ciaims that this state- ment is untrue and defamaiory” o thei” cbaracter and damaging to their business an: employment and therefore of a mali- cious nature, wherefore the Plaintiffs are comp-lled "oseek redress for same -and request®ihat the Defendant be pun ished and compelled to pay all court ex- penses indemnifyingly, lawyer's fee “inciuded. The Piaintiffs assert that the price paid the Planters 15 ipn accerdance with the existing coniracis and deny that any officiai guutadoun existed, at the (ime when the price was fixed, and that there- fore these prices in default of official quotaion in New Yeork were fixed ac- cording to_the last official quotations in New %m'k :as provided for by the con- tract. The Plaintiffs admit that they, of cours:,; were aware of the faet that sugars had been sold in New York at higher prices, but as there existed no official quotation at the’ timne, the Sugar wxenange being closed, the prices were consequently fixed in conformicy with the stipulations of the contract on the basis of the last official quotations, which were made by U. 8. Government’s “Kqualization Board. and which were gquoted .n the public telegrams received here at the time of the prices being fixed by the Plaintiffs. The Defendant waives any technical defense and submits his defense based on (1) truth of the publication (2) lack of malice 1n making publication and (3) gualified privilege in mgfcing the publica tion. v The Defendant denies the allegation of the Plaintiffs that they, as Diregtors ot the said ‘“The West Indian Sugar Factory’’ are the parties who fix the price for the canes delivered by the con- tracted Planters in conformity with the rules contained iu the contract for the calculation of the said prices. The De- fendant asserts that the said contracts provide, in Paragraph 4 -of Section 1 ‘thereot: "“‘Payments shall be made on Wednes- “‘days of every week at' prices based on ‘quotations in New York and on the “import duties respectively in New “York and in SBt, Croix cxisting on ¥ the Saturday preceding the day of “payment. If fcr any reasons no “‘quotations are made in New York' on ‘“‘the Saturday in questicn, the last “previous-quotations are to be used as ‘‘the basis for calculating the prices “‘for canes deélivered.”’ ~ which foregoing paragraph fixed a price for cane delivered, and does not leave the parties Plaintiff the fixingof the ‘price, and the Defendant asserts it never was’the intent of the parties of the sec- ond part te said contracts, namely the cane deliverers, that.the price was to be fixed by the Plaintiff, but that the price be fixed according to the terms f said: contract as contained therein. The De- s G R UM A VIS fendant denies that the price paid the Planters is in afeordanze with the exist- ing contract. and asserts that the ques- t®n -whether “‘apy official guotagion existed at the time, when the price was fixed’’has absolutely no standing in this matter. The enntracts in question do not, and never have, called for the price to be paid to the cane -deliverers to be fixed upon ‘‘official quotations’”’, and asserts that the contracts plainly call for the price t: be based on quotations in New York, the words "official quota- tion”’ appear no where in said con- tracts The Defendent further denies that the Plaintiffs could rightly and justly use the quotation of the TJ. S. ‘iovernment's Egqualization Board as a basis of settlement, for the sound reascn that said Equalization Board had been dissolved prior to the time of setiiement and the quotation f said Equalization ‘Beard then was matter of sugar history and was a dead quota- tion which was only favourable tuv the Plaintiffs and detrimental to the cane de- liverers, The Defendant guotes from ““The Louisiana Sugar Planter and Sugar Manufacturer’’ a recognized sugar jour- nal, from page 34 of issue dated January 17th. 1920: “‘The New York sugar market—at the “‘end of last week sugar was .reported “firm in Cuba at 12 cents per Cubas “‘cost and freight, equal to 13.04 for 96 ““test. duty paid.”’ P and from issue of January 24th 1920: -, ~'Purchases of Sugar in Cuba at 12 - “‘eents for 96 test, cost and freight, or **13.04 cents duty paid, delivered."”’ and from issue of January 31st. 1920: ‘‘Several of the leading sugar refiner- “‘jes of New York are offering fine . ‘'white grapulated suga: at 14.70 cents “‘net cash and the purchasers of sugar “‘recently made at a cost equal toabout **18.04 cents duty paid, delivered in “New York.”’ and from issue of February T7th. 1920: ‘““The New York sugar m rket has ‘been going through the week on the ‘l2 cents cost and freight or 13.05 “‘cents basis for 96 test sugar.’’ The Defendant asserts that Plain- tiffs received the aforesaid publica- tion ‘'Louisiana Sugar Planter and Manufacturer’> containing the afore- said information whereby the Plain- tiffs were in a position to know that the price prevailing and quoted in New York at the time in question, was not 7.28 but rather in the neighbourhood of 13 cents which said figures and quotation then ekisted in New York should rightly, properly and honestly have formed the basis of settiement with cane-deliverers, rather than the supposed official quota- tion long theretofore set by the non- existing Equalization Board. In view thereof and as, the laintifls admit in their plea” by stating "ofcourse they were aware of the fact that sugars had been sold in New York at higher prices.”’ The Defendant asserts that the words scomplained of by the Plaintiffs, to wit: “Knowing fuli well that $13.00 was the correet prize'’ is.a true statement. The Defendant further asserts that Mr. Adamsen, of parties Piaintiff, admitted at a public meeting of the Food Com- mission” of St. Croix that he, the said Adamsen then Knew that sugar was being quoted in New York at about 13 cents which assertion, however: is denied hy the said Plainfiff. The Defendant further asserts that at the time of the pwblication complained of he was Agronomist-in-Charge of the Agricultural Experiment Station of the Virgin Islands, and rhat as such it was his duty to make the said publication, and that it was made in good faith and without malice. The Defendant demands that he be acquitted in the Case and that the Complainants pay the cost. [he Plaintiffs assert that on account of the uncertainty almost panic in the sugar maiket, they had to be doubly careful how they acted in fixing the prices of cane to the cane ‘deliver- ers but, the Plaintiffs do not deny that sugar was sold in New York auring the period in issue at about 13 cents and they admit having receiyed from Melchior & Co., New York, answer to a cable of 21st. January a. ¢. that Por- to Rico sugar was sold at 12.75 im: edi- ate shipment. " The Court finds. that according to ihe vroduced elueidations in tha coco, snear was sold in New York at tie time in is- su¢ at"about $13.00 per 100 lbs. 96 test Crystals, andethat the Plaintiffs paid to their cane deliverers only on the basis of $7.28 for Q 0 lbs. of 96 test, and that therefore iné Defendant’s assertion about the existing price of sugar in New York at the time in question and the price the Plaintiffs paid to the Planters was true and eorrect. It ecannot be said that the statement aboutthe sugar prices, con tained in the complaized publicatign, is improper or unwarranted. The Oourt there ore finds, titat the Defendant is not guilty of violation of Section 9 of the Or dinance of March 11th. 1862 as claimed by the Plaintiffs; and the Defendants request to be acquitted in this Case is therefore t@ be comiplied ’ith. FEach party pays his own eost. It i 8 the decision of the Court: Thé Deiendant Dr. Longfield Smith is acquitted for the prosecution of the Plain tiffs Folmer Andersen and F. Adamsen in this Case. Each party pays his own COSt. - [s] WILH. JENSEN CORREECT COPY e 5 St Mgzils for S{/Themas wiilfhe closed and dispaiched at 5 P. ini. io~day.