The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1878-07-06
END OF THE PIANO CASE.
DECKER BROTHERS VICTORIOUS.

Entry Of Judgment against Myron A.
Decker and John c. Barnes. History
of the Case.
During the last week the action brought
by Messrs. Decker Brothers, OF No. SO Union
Square the well known piano manufactur-
ers, against Decker & Barnes, of Third ave-
nue. and Fourteenth street, to restrain them
from making use of the name Decker" or
1.-The Decker" piano, has been before Judge
Donohue at Special Term in the Supreme
Court, and yesterday ended in complete
victory for Decker Brothers.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs
have for fourteen years past been continu-
ously and uninterruptedly engaged in the
| manufacture of pianos, and that their pi-
amos have gained wide spread and envia-
BILE reputation for their superior quality.
That ever since they have been engaged in
the business they have been the only per-
sons composing any firm manufacturing
pianos all the members of which have
borne the name of DECKER" That by
reason Of their long continuance in the bus
iness, and this last fact, their pianos have
for many years past been known both to the
| PuDllS dllb pluIlO tlduC 10 tllS ,bSChcI
pianos and were the only ones in the mar
ket known as such. That the celebrity of
their pianos has induced evil disposed per-
sons to defraud the public by representing
that they were the manufacturers of the
Decker piano, and among others, that
the defendants have so defrauded the public
and the plaintiffs. That the defendants, to
further such fraud, on or about the 18th
day Of April, 1876, by means of false affi-
davits procured from the Commissioner of
Patents at Washington, certificate of their
exclusive right to use the term u" The Deck
er Piano" as trademark, and also, in their
circulars falsely asserted that they were the
makers of the only genuine Decker" pi-
ano, and with the idea, presumptively,"
of Strengthening such statements, falsely
asserted that in 1872 gold medal had been
awarded their pianos. The complaint also
narrates the connection of the defendants
with the piano trade; that they first became
co-partners in 1870; that prior to that time
one of them had not been engaged i'll the
piano business, and the connection of the
other Mr. Myron A. Deckerl with it had
been of a very irregular nature, to-wit,
sometimes a journeyman, then restaura-
teur, then with a small shop, then in the
firm of Decker & Co., formed to profit by
| the plaintiffs reputation, then again Jour
anu ollSl III lllC III dStlllSl
which this action is brought.
The answer admits that the defendant
Decker had been restaurateur, and admits
the taking out of the trademark certificate,
but denies the principal allegations of the
complaint.
Messrs. Townsend & Weed appeared for
Decker Brothers and Messrs Albeit & Fuller
for Decker Il Barnes.
MR.. JOHN j. DECKER
Was first called by the plaintiffs, and sus-
tanned the general allegations of the COM
plant. Commissions which had been taken
out on the part of the plaintiffs in Canada,
California, Ohio, Michigan, and other States,
were then read by Mr., Weed, all showing
that the only decker" piano which was
known in the musical world and to the gen
eral public was manufactured by Messrs.
Decker Brothers, of No. 80 Union Square
were Messrs. William Steinway of Stein
way & Sons, Lowell Mason, President of the
Mason q Hamlin Organ Company, George
F. Ilsley, n. J. Haines of Haines Brothers,
George Steck, of Steck & Co., Charles P.
Fisher, of !. & c. Fisher, Edward Schuberth,
Franz Remmertz, Charles Tradel, George
w. Colby, William f. Mills, Gottlieb Fed
erlein, Helmuth Kranisch, David II. Den
ham, William A Pond Theodore Thomas,
Christian Fritsch, Adoph Sohet John W.
Chambers, Secretary of the American Insti-
tute, and Otis B. Boise.
At the close of the testimony for the
plaintiff, Mr., Leon Albeit moved to dismiss
the complaint, which was denied.
ON THE PART OF THE DEFENSE,
The first witness called was Daniel w. Cul-
on, a druggist of Jersey City. He testified
that as early as 1862 he purchased a piano
of 1,a Jafap1ant Myrop A noolyar AVID
that such piano had upon the name board
Decker" On cross-eXamination by J. w.
Townsend, it was discovered that this wit
ness was a relative of the defendant Decker,
and much amusement was occasiOned
through the confusion in which he was
thrown by the questions Of counsel. In be-
ing examined as to what relation he was to
the defendant Decker, he said first, Il think
he married a daughter of my wife's grand
father" then, "No he married daughter
of my mothers uncle" then, "No, Mr..
Decker's wife's grandfather was an aunt of
my mother-no, an uncle of my mother-I
mean that his wife's grandfather was an
uncle of my mother"
The next witness was Myron A. Decker,
one of the defendants He testified that he
had worked at the business of piano manu-
| featuring since he was fourteen years of
age that he went into business for himself
in Albany, in the spring of 1856 and his
piano was there and around there known as
the Decker piano. In 1860 he came to New
York, and for time was in the restaurant
business. In the spring of 1862 he COM
menced the piano business in New York,
and made his first piano in Twenty-frst
street, and it had " "DeCker" on the name
board. In 1862 he moved to No. 81 East
Twenty-second street, and remained there
until 1864; he made about a piano week.
In 1864 he went with George F. Ilsley, pi-
ano dealer, and remained with him until
| 1868, under the name of Decker & Co. Prior
to going into business with Ilsley he manu-
factured pianos for Ilsley and put Ilsey's
name upon them. From 1869 to 1871 he
did business for himself and made pianos
for Mr.. Barnes (wlth whom he subsequently
went into business) to pay debt he owed
him, and put Barnes name on the piano.
From 1871 to 1876 he was one of the firm of
Decker & Barnes, and now conducts busi-
ness in his own name.
BEFORE THE CROSS XAMINATION