New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-10-23
A Gas Stove suit.

In the United States Circuit Court at st.
Louis, the following case, as reported for
| the Republican, came up for trial:
The suit of David G. Haskins vs.. the Cam
bridge Gas Stove and Boiler Company came
up for hearing. The defendant, u company
organized in this city, had purchased Of the
plaintiff who is resident of Boston, the
right to manufacture its patent gas stove
in this State, and gave him his note for
$ll00 When this became due, the company
refused to pay it, on the ground that 1T bad
found the invention to be useless. The
plaintiff sues for $1,000. Yesterday, w. f.
placed upon the stand to give evidence for
the defense. He gave q history of the cir
cumstances attending the purchase Of the
patent right, which were. that Genera! Har-
ding, Hatch, Weaver. Felt & Co., and Hull
g. COzzens became impressed with the idea
that the purchase might be a profitable in
vestment. and witness thought as there was
luck in three "Ss," there might DO luck in
three "H's."
General Harding induced witness in Feb
ruary, 1870, to go to Boston to sec the in
ventor and investigate the matter, and fur
nished $780, witness paying the remainder
of the expenses. When he got to Boston
and visited Haskins. he found the frag-
ments Of stove in an attic and asked him
if that was all the success he had achieved.
Hasl1ns said not, and referred him to an
agent. who, he stated, had the stoves for
sale. He went there and was hardly treated
with civility, but not dispirited; he went
again to the inventor and was taken to
where there was wagon load Of stoves,
a-pots and kettles Of every variety At
ter this, he was taken to house where
there was one gas stove in a small dining
room and one in hall. Neither of them
were lighted, but ono was Lit by the lady of
the house, and she was very enthusiastic
about it.
Witness was favorably impressed with it,
and at that time received a dispatch from
Hatch, Weaver, Felt & Co., to close the
contract, make Haskins a payment and
come home, bringing him with him if pos
sible He returned and found that the com
pany had been organized during his alb
sence. Haskins superintended the con-
structiOn of stoves for the company and ex-
periments were made for heating purposes
at the Lindell Hotel. These were not sue
ccssful, and the company found the inven-
ton useless.
Witness, in answer to question as to
whether there was any deception practiced
at Boston in the working Of the stove. to
throw dust in his eyes, said that there Ger
tainly was or he would never have fooled
away $1,000 or more. When asked what this
deception consisted of, he said the dining
room at Boston was comfortably warm be-
fore the gas stove was lighted, but he
thought, judging from the difference in the
temperature, that the stove emitted suff-
Gent heat He admitted it was an error of
Judgment.
Question-Was any deception practiced'
Witness-I am just as well satisfied that
the woman went to sec in Boston
Witness was interrupted by plaintiff 3
attorney, who said they would come to the
woman afterward His examination was
concluded shortly after, and he was not
allowed to give the explanation he had de-
sired.
Colonel John Knapp was called as wit
ness and testified that he had tried the
stove and found that it was not what it had
been represented to be. The gas escaped
from it, made the air offensive, and did not
give sufficient heat.
Further testimony will be given i'll the
case to-day, when Judge Treat will be called
to speak on the merits or dement's of the
stove.