POPE V. FILLEY. 69 �Those are the words, gentlemen, which are used in the trade, which are peouliar to the business of the iron merchant. They are not words the meaning of which persons would ordinarily understand. Men.who have no knowledge of the business of an iron merchant, or of the manufacture and sale of iron, would not be able to determine the question of what is meant by No. 1 Shott's Scotch pig-iron. Hence it is that the court has allowed testimony to be offered to you as to the understanding of iron merchants upon this subject as to the meaning that attaches to these words when they are used in the trade by dealers in iron. �This con tract, as you observe, was executed in St. Louis, and I charge you that it must be understood to have referred to the term here. It must be understood that the parties used these words with the meaning that they have among iron merchants in this city, and you have had a good deal of testimony from the witnesses on both sides as to what is meant by those words — as to what quality of iron is described by those terms. I do not propose to go into recapitula- tion of the testimony, such as lias been given to you, but I say to you that it is for you to determine from this testimony what those words do mean, as they are understood by iron merchants in St. Louis, and when you have determined that question then you are to inquire and decide whether the iron which was tendered to the defendant came up to and filled the requirement of such description. �If you find that the iron which was tendered was not within this definition, No, 1 Shott's Scotch pig-iron, then it does not follow the contract, and the plaintiffs cannot recover. But, on the other hand, if you find from the evidence that the iron was of the description named in the contract, as understood by the merchants here, where the contract was made, then the plaintili has fulalled that part of the contract, and is entitled to recover, if you find that he has fulfilled the other portions of the contract, �You have before you, gentlemen, the testimony of a great number of experts on this subject. It would take a great deal of time, and be to no purpose, for me to enter into a discussion of the testimony itself. It is for you to take it all and consider it fairly and dispas- sionately, and determine from it whether the contract in this respect has been complied with or not. Ail that I need to say to you, as a matter of law, is that the burden is on the plaintili to show that he has complied with the contract, not only with regard to the time of the shipment, but with respect to the quality of the iron which was abipped and tendered to the defendant. ��� �
