Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1870-01-06
RafcheiIer VS.. BatcheiIer.

Last weeks HERALD contained an
article evidently written in the interest of
the Messrs. Batcheller 81 Sons, and would
not be noticed or replied to but for the
fact that many assertions therein were
contrary to the real facts at issue, and re-
fleet seriously both upon the new company
and upon Mr. /. G. Batcheller personally,
who is connected with the new company,
and has the entire management of their
works.
The public are aware that Batcheller s.
Sons, in August last, in New York, pro-
cured temporary injunction upon the
"Batcheller Manufacturing Company" to
restrain them from the use of their
brothers name in the new company, claim
ing that their eldest brother had not the
right to make forks and sell them under
his own name. The case was tried and
Judge Barnard, upon hearing the testi-
mony and arguments on both sides,
promptly dissolved the injunction, where
upon the Messrs. Batcheller 81 Sons a 1.
pealed from the decision of Judge Barnard
to the full bench in the general term of
the Supreme Court. The case was argued
there before Judges Switzerland, Cardoza
and Clark, who unanimously affirmed
the decision of the court below. The de-
cision of Judge Barnard, which appeared
in full in the New York Tribune, in July,
was copied into the HERALD and has been
before its readers, therefore any allusion to
it would be unnecessary, but the article
in last weeks HERALD referred to, accuses
the "Batcheller Manufacturing Company"
of piTdt57lg their name, and states the is
sue as narrowed down to two points.
The first of which is, did the Messrs.
Batcheller & Sons consent that their
brother /. G.. Batcheller might use his
own name, in the manufacturing of forks
and the sale of the same as used in the
new company.
Second, VIII the Batcheller Manufac-
turing Company palm their forks off on
to the trade as the mark of Batcheller x
Sons" Now, for the benefit of the pub
lie, we will state that the Batcheller Man
nfacturing Company claim that |. G.
Batcheller, who was formerly one of the
firm with their father, and who made
forks long before either of the brothers
now composing the firm of Batcholler u
Sons did, had and has the most undoubted
right to his name and skill in their man
ufacture, with or without their consent.
Second, The firm of Batcheller ~ Sons
fully gave their approval of his thus asso-
ciating himself with company for the
purpose of manufacturing forks, az he has
done, and urged their brother Isaac to
charge the new company of which he
was To be member good round price
for his name and skill, claiming that both
would be of great valne to the new com
pany. These facts were shown on trial,
even by their own testimony. The new
company expect to make cook fork and
will in no way attempt to pass them off aa
made by Batcheller 4 Sons, fully relying
upon their ability to make a fork equal to
those made by Batcheller s. Sons. The old
firm lay great stress upon their brothers
selling his name to company for $4,000 IN
stock. The facts are different. About two
years ago l. G. Bat0heller and Franklin
Post talked OF form ing company for the
manufacture of forks; Post owning the
land and water power, and Batcheller
having full knowledge of the business
which he had worked at, more or less, fol-
over thirty-iive years. Bachelor claimed
that in the company to be formed, his
skill and experience would be of great
value to said company, and always III
sisted that certain amount OF the stock
of the company to be formed should be-
given him III consideration of the new
company's having the benefit of his name
skill and experience in the business OF
making forks. tbs was 50 talked fol
over one year previous to Mr. Batchellel
and Mr.. Posts getting up the present Or
t ganizution, and Mr.. |. G. Batcheller com
PEELED the company to set aside for hin
81, 900 of its capital stock III considera
ton Of his name, skill and experience be
ing used to promote the interests of the
new company.
1t was shown on trial that he ever
+ taught his brothers the art, and thes,
brothers even go so far in their sew
,, eral affidavits as to say that he pos
sessesIn0 skill and is entirely destitute
or nearly so--of any experience in thu
r manufacture of forks. All this is in Drin
, and on file, and can be seen at any time
by those asking to see the evidence. Thei
article admits that they commenced &C
S ton against the "Batcheller Manufactur
, ing Company" long before the factory
q was completed, and before any good
were made by the new company, ant
gives as a reason for this premature &C
I ton, that they did so that it might no
t result in any damage to the new company
The new company would long since hav
. been manufacturing forks and taking ant
: filling orders for the spring trade, but TO
the injunction on them from taking or
: ders, making or selling forks, or of issu
ing only circulars or price lists.