
    Clintsman against Northrop.
    ON error to the 0. P. of Lewis. Clintsman sued Nor* tbrop before a justice of Lewis county, on a contract by the latter to deliver to the former, certain good sole leather * ^ the month of May, 1826, at the shop of Northrop. JuJgment being for Clintsman, Northrop appealed to the P.
    On the trial in the O. P., the defence was, that Northrop had tendered the leather: and he proved that he r . , , r had caused a sufficient quantity to be inspected, (neither being present,) by an official inspector, pursuant to the provisions of the statute. (2 R. L, 340,) some of which statiiped '♦‘best,” and some "good,” and set it apart at bi® (b^s) sb°P ÍQ May, 1826, for Clintsman. He (0.) called the leather upon his contract; but declined receiving the inspected leather, on the ground that it was not good, offered to prove, in the 0. P., that it was not good, but bad and damaged; and that the part marked good, was tainted, the grain broken, and so full of holes as to he untb® outer'soles of shoes. To this proof, Northrop objected on the ground that the inspection and stamp were and conclusive. The court sustained the objection, deciding that the inspection and stamp were conclusive, unless Clintsman could show fraud or collusion between Northrop and the inspector. ^Clintsman excepted; and this was now the single point on error. The verdict and judgment were for Northrop in the court below. • *
    Under a detoanactím on a contract to deliver sqIa leather the stemp^of 3an official inspected the leather pursuant to the provisions of the conclusive eviquality of may he shown differentUfrom by8the’stamp5
    it is not the eystem °of °in. to^ende^ttie decision of the spectors of flour, beef, leather, &a. fil dusive8<but°to proteet commumty from frauds and impositions in domestic sales, and to preserve the character of the state abroad as to exported articles: . .
    
      Seatb. The law never gives a conclusive effect to the exporte certifleate of any officer^ as to matter depending on the exercise of integrity, judgment and discretion. ' '
    
      
      C. & Clarke, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Collins and Parish, contra.
   Curia, Per Sutherland J.

The act does not declare that the certificate, or mark, of the inspector shall be con* elusive. It is not the object or-policy of our system of inspection laws, to render the -decisions of the different inspectors of flour, beef, pork, staves, leather, &o., final and conclusive. The object of those laws is to protect community, so far as they apply to domestic sales, from frauds and impositions; and in relation to articles designed for exportation, to preserve the character and reputation of the state in foreign markets.

I am not aware that the law, in any case, gives a conclusive effect to the ex parte certificate of a public officer in relation to matters which depend upon the exercise of integrity, judgment and discretion; and by which private rights and contracts may be seriously affected. Take the familiar case of the proof and acknowledgment of a deed; which the law so far respects as to permit the deed to be recorded and given in evidence, in consequence of the officer’s Certificate. Yet, any party who may be affected by the deed, is, notwithstanding, at perfect liberty to contest its due execution. The judgment must be reversed; and a venire de novo go from the court below.

Judgment reversed.  