New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-02-27
5rerlal Notiess.
Protection to Housekecpers.

or FRAuDuIENT GOODS FROM GROCERS-IN.
TEREsTING EXTRACTS FROM A sUPsEME
COURT DECISION AFFECTING BASE IMiEA-
TIoN OF sAPoLIo-sTRoNG JUDICIAL DENoN
CITATION
weseted principle of business morals that the man
who frauduently initiates trade mark Is equally WIN tDo
aduteFator OF food and drugs foe 10 society he ppeude
double for he only seeks rob the manufacturer
the genuine which he has secure py
industry business sagac butt also nt'nos 10 de
ceve the innocent purchaser by palmng on base ana au
upon him the genuine article ne ses bu'
the General and state provided snsent
laws for punishment Of this ella OF offenders against
morals continual litigation Is taking place.
There every community class Of men, akin 70 the
freebooter upon rOber land VINO acting
upon ufany principle that the "woild owes ia EN- NV
ng every dishonest means to ooece
ut the expense labor No sooner Is an aruce
OF prime general yaue pushed into VIDE promI
and sale than It by this class OF men as
desirable object their nefaous practices Tney seek !"
closely and ingeniousy as TO actually deceive u
wary purchasers they endeavor 10 compound OF
fac article for similar purposes make u as 81
imitation "A they can of the original placing tupon
the less persuade people 70 Duy IL IN peo
ence the object the sameto roo e ho"r
manufacturer and sUndle the public Often such men arc
aided in Dealers who alured oy the
profits willing 70 abet the fraud oy rep
resenng article genuine or a. eQuaDy Eooo
for purpose ANY intelligent person can enter certain
grocery NewYork and detect hundred
and spurious articles sold pure and genuine 70
every day. business evil OF the hrst magnitude anu
society sedetence should putt down oy inc serne
measures. .o,o
has been before public nearly fifteen years During tn
time hundreds Of dollars have been spent W
advertise It, and TO acquain housekeepes with ts superior
throughout entire civilized world AT the tmc Oh
its Introduction the requirements modern styles OF living
had such article prime necessity Enoeh Morgan'
Sons were sagacOus enough discern this fact and after
patient research liberal expenditure and series OF expert
mens succeeded IT. It's popularity was assured
almost from the It's wonderful adaptabihy to VIDE
domestic Its extremely convenient iorm low
price dependence upon 1t to perform s ONCE
far superior methods in great and
wide Aided by the very effective medium OF
Using afforded by the newspaper whose columns the
literally the sale has grown until the trade marx
OF proprey right vested in It, become OF great CONNER
cal value SAPOLIo therefore 10 inscriptions and dis
honest been shining mark for fraudulent IMITATION
These began far back as 1871 and have oeen IN
one form continued unnteruDtedy ever SINCE
As discovered prompt and in every case successful
legal measures taken TO suppress them sometimes
the parties have quietly desed upon service of legal sum-
sometimes they have disappeared when menaced oy
the law sometimes they have fought But In every IN
stance when the parties have stood legal trs ey hE0
been bcaendenounced punished by the Courts In the
Judgments for damages have been obtained
by SAPOO perpetual njuncuon Issued In one case
that Of schwachoer who under the high sounding
title OF the East River Chemical WorkA mahe an auoh
called Saphia" penalty OF Sl3OOO
The recent wherein the Enoch Morgans sons
Company forced prosecute for fraudulent mla
composed according the evidence adduced upn the trial.
OF the firm Of H. Thuber Co. In tho entire range OF
trade litigation this case is one OF the most interesting
because business prominence OF some OF the Dsres
and peculiar methods used shown by the testimony 70
Introduce imitation, uuder the name OF pride OF inc
Kitchen suit was begun by Enoch Morgans Sons Co
I'm Supreme Court and the case was sent 10 the
| Hon Judge J. r. Boswoth as refe The testimony was
yoluminous able but the verdict was "nOV
in favor Of plaintiffs who awarded large pecuniary
damages IL is proposed here to briefly summarize the
opinion and slight portion Of the testimony as
illustrative After reciting the facts reauVet 10
the Efforts made by Enoch Morgans widely introduce
and popuarzo sAPOLTo and the success attending sucn
efforts. the opinion referring certain testimony OF one oil
| the parties, quotes as follows:
"rne sum and substance conversation with was
this wanted get tradmark similar TO the race
the and during that time he ana were naa
ing and forming our own ideas and before we h
arrived decision In regard to that matter ie'
| TruxeL'
And then the opinion remarks;
IN q, ouite evident from the testimony, that William l..
Troxe manufactured his securing soap OF the
consistency OF thick paste and put up tin box was In
competent to Sapolo" or product Ike It,
His own product failure in the market" All
thesc efforts the end of putting hs Pride OF
the Ktch en- Dress that II might BIO placed
on orocer shelves beside "sapono" sold being
polio" Tho manifest intent was 70 deceive The retail Gus
of the grocers the sale OF his
ufacture of ;he plaintiffs which had come to be
| known a. "Sapolio"
referring TO number OF lady witnesses the opinion further
savs Among those witnesses hOusekeepers,
who had used sapOo years. and did not know there
such an article Pride of the Kitchen IN the market
although they bad used 1t tsapoliO) so long"
And commenting upon the manner in which they had been
deceived by grocers who when they asked for SAPoLo
handed them Pride Of Kitchen" instead Judge Bos
worth says
dyefsd 10 them in answer 70 their application sapO
un began the Of the article when they
on taking wrapper Off the cake that euin3ed as hey
had sapolo 70 do and scratched ne articles
very very Satisfactory Kitchen could BE- and
Who Who Ind Ind long IS IN used the latter"
1Earo svasa witness named H. c. Richards. testified
that he was salesman the employ of H. X Thurber Co.,
and that when directed sell Pride Of the Kitchen TO the
800 ba as told by Mr. H. X Thurber himself In the first
MACE that soaps alike and they could not De told
nv the trade to they would be Sold wherever
| would sell the other would SELL"
| And no further testified;
1T was asked IN the first place. what Mr. Thurber said to
me about the soap and as near as
SaS and that the they would Ouid not
The same witness relates conversation had at the time
with Mt parsha which, referring to TrO1ell he says
He that tho folks to whom was sold bought the
Pride Of the Kitchen sapoo or what i was and that
gnc the ;Sca ,5 20 whom Who
appded thai s8G SO told them that
.SouiS not EnOW the difference"
From Tho testimony given by Mr. Thurber and Mr. Parshall
f. appears they carefully contradctng
| AR Richards Thu opinion on this point says;
Rchars testines Parsha said to him. that i Il was
pu on Vas soId could difference And that
hs Was told bv Mr. Tnurber himself In the hrst plac nat
the soans were alike U0utd not be told apart D tne
trede 70 whom they lie i'd wherever one would sell
he amer would sell" Neither PRrsnal nor IhurDer was
asked il Richards tea titles that they aid say
here "a great between saying that the trade
.rnJ mot discover difference between the TWO ana say
An The trade whom the soaps would be sold e0ua not
a.iscOUeT H." .
commenting upon testimony the opinion OF the Court
| contains the following comments;
established the evidence that the persons VINO
orht M fhe RloceTs although they called for SapoO ana
wanted sapoo having Pride Of The Kitchen handed 70
mem in answer TO application did not discover the d
isrence hut took the Pride OF the Kitchen believing that
was tends strongly 10 the concus ION
o. he IL aiteI