The Inspector reported this half-rotten apple
to the Attorney General,
who brought suit a-
gainst the greengrocer under the Pure Foods
Act.
At trial, the Attorney General was quite per-
suasive in his argument,
citing, as precedent,
the ancient case of the Crown vs.
Uncle
John’s Cider Mill, in which it was held,
“One
rotten apple spoils the barrel.”
The greengrocer was quite poor but man-
aged to secure competent
representation from |
Legal Aid.
His lawyer cited the even more
ancient case of the Crown vs.
Madame X,
in which the Courts ruled that a mother could
not
throw her baby out with the bath.
The Chancellor was impressed by both
briefs, and undecided.
An attorney for Save
the Children petitioned for leave to appear
as “friend of the Court.”
Leave was grant-
ed; the attorney adduced evidence that half
an apple
would keep two children alive for
two days, and cited two yet more
ancient
cases – the Crown vs. Baker, in which it |
was held, “Half a loaf is better than none,”
and H.
vs. H., in which King Solomon ruled
that a baby,
claimed by both of two women,
was to be divided between the two
equally,
by the sword.
While Solomon’s dictum was righteous,
counsel noted, the
baby’s real mother non-
suited, pleading with the King to give
the en-
tire baby to the pretender (whereupon the
King, perceiving
the truth, rendered the baby
unto its mother).
But in this case, counsel
argued, King Solomon’s judgment
should
be executed, and the rotten half of the apple
given to the
Crown, and the ripe half back
to the greengrocer for sale.
The Chancellor deliberated, and rendered |
his judgment:
While the greengrocer’s case
was persuasive, and Save the
Children’s
cases perhaps even more so, the Crown’s
was
closer in point, since therein the res
litigiosae was a
rotten apple, as in the case
at bar, and not babies or bread.
Moreover,
the case of H. vs. H., cited
by Save the Chil-
dren, was from a foreign jurisdiction, and not
precedent in this land.
The Court held for the
Crown.
“After all,” the Chancellor said, “the
law is the
law.”
The greengrocer appealed.
The parties were in a quandary:
What to
do with the apple pending appeal?
“There is no injunction against your selling |
the apple,” the greengrocer’s lawyer advised
him,
“and because the case is on appeal, the
judgment is not final.”
The attorney for Save the Children pitched
in, “And your apple
may do some good.”
But the Attorney General warned the green-
grocer, “If you lose
the appeal, and the apple
has been sold, you will be severely
punished.”
The greengrocer did nothing.
In those days,
however, justice was swift; and the Court of
Appeals
ruled in two days.
“The learned Chancellor below,” the Court |
of Appeals stated in its formal opinion, “was
quite right in perceiving that the case cited
by the Crown dealt
with apples, and not
with bread or children, and seems, on the
surface, more pertinent.
“But the learned Chancellor seems to
have overlooked the fact
that an apple,
like bread, is food; and the raison d’être
of food is to feed the children, and other
people.
Thus the cases cited by the green-
grocer and Save the Children are
not inap-
posite.
“Moreover, while the case of H. vs. H.
is
from a foreign jurisdiction, we would invite |
(for more writings by Natty Bumppo, see Borf Books)
