The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-07
A CASE OF CHAMPAGNE.

An examination before trial OF special interest TO
champagne consumers this country was had yestcr-
day beorc Recorder Hackctt, sitting IN Chambers.
The complanants in the Mcssrs Frederick DE
Barry & Co, importers and dealers in the champagne
wines OF G. II. Mumm 4 Co. The parties complained
against comprise large number ofchampagnc dealers
who, Is charged, although pretending sell the
genuine Mumm Co. champagne, sell only q spurious
article. Mr.. A. Oakley Hall appeared for the prosecu-
tors. very ieagthy affidavit SUBJ
mitted OF Lewis Saurcr one of the firm OF
Frederick Do Barry & Co. The affidavit states that to
such extent had this fictitious production OF falsc
and dclctcrious wine been carried that some time
sipcc ny ard OF detectives and others vigorous
inquiry made the OF all the manuiac-
turc bottling and selling OF this FICTITIOUS that
found that ii carried great secrecy,
and that the wine would be manufactured bottled and
corkcd place and would be labelled ana packed
AMI boxed IN another place; that To very large
tens through operation OF junk dealers and ped
icrs, their old bottles with The labels still intact
purchased from hotels and restaurants and pri
vatc families and made the innocent cause Of de-
traudng the public with the bad which is subsc.
aucntly put into them, and by the and OF falsely
brnndcd corks. and that through the JUNK dealers
pcdIcrs cionnicrs their boxes which have passed
through the Custom House are. TO considerable ex-
tent rcgathcrcd and used likewise the means OF de-
The Recorder having hcard tho testimony. decided to
send the for trial. and notified the accnsed-Ai-
phousc Charles Brett photographers Fulton street;
Thomas n. AruoId, Worth street; and Henry wcgkc.
Canal strcct-tiat lie would hold them Tor trial. the
charges respectively, OF printing the counterfeit labels,
OF botl'ng the spurious wine, and Of selling the same
ms genuine.
Several witnesses we're examined, whose testimony
showed that the work OF labelling, botng, &C. this
counicrciiing business Is all separated INTO distinct
branches and ~ done In accordance with wcil
suted plan, which has been long working successfully.
Mis-. BURKE AND HER COUNSEL.
The Burke Gardner suit, as already stated In tho
HERALD, has resulted in proceedings by Mrs. Burke
against her counsel, A. II. H. Dawson to recover about
al
ing to the estate or her father the lato Captain Alex
sndcr, and received by him from the Union Trust
Company. Further testimony was taken in the case
bc.orc the referee yesterday ex-Attorncy General
chatncid appearing Tor Mrs. Burkc and Mr. Dawson
representing himself He testified his behalf
that the he had employed assisting counsel was
that his client, Mrs. Burke, was continually pouring
questions hts during the trial. and he iouEd u
necessary have assistant TO listen to her ques
lions His whole heart and soul IN that case so
that he sometimes could not see before HIM. He did
know at what moment he might TALL, and u he did
tail he wanted some one TO take charge OF the ship.
When he agreed attend to the graiuitously no
did not know Mrs Burke had any properly.
Then you did agree to attend 10 II grauuousy ="
..If unsuccessfui,p Mr. Dawson answered continu-
ing his testimony, Dawson sad-wbcn nc found Mrs.
Burke nad property he prepared agreement, IN
which he was to exact twenty-five per cent OF the re.
rovcry his fec she pcrcmplorly refused to sign thus
agreement, and IRON that point the ease took new
mr. Chaincld--Evidenti Il didn't depart from yous
Witness, resumng. said Tor the money received by
him he paid 70 wilson Grcig SIS, her order; he
Endorsed her notes 10 the extent OF s14o;
payment OF a stenographcr's ball OF 500.
Al this point nawson's testimony suspended, TO
await the testimony OF MIA ii. Rcdhcid The latter
testified that he familiar with an proceedings
in the before the Surrogate. aud, upon the tcst
mouy rs 20 subsequent proceedings IN which Dawson
part he thought about $500 wonid he sufficient
fee without taking into consideration time which may
have spent consultation with his client; II Daw
son should coilect the Judgment he might be entitled
20 an attorney fee well n counsel Zee.
Adam Brown, OF Union county, New Jersey. swore
that there but three examinations before him
Comm sssoncr. at Of which Dawson not pres
emit Dawson. again rcsrinng hs testimony, said he
the and anaIy Of the test mony
taken before the Surrogate worth $1,000 His Efforts
10 get nm order OF arrest he thought worth $500.
The further examination was adjourned until Tues
day next