Daily Republican., 1883-05-18

THE SEWING NACHINE CAAv
Continuation Of tho Trial Th,.
Morning.

the bench. The case OF The Singer SEW.
ing Machine Company VS.. Isaac Nu,.
ray was proceeded with.
Sarah Murray. the wife of til" pIaD.
tiff, was callel to the stand, and Mr.
Lore objected TO her being allowed IA
testify, on account Of her being the wife
of the plaintiff and an interested party
\ fter argument between cOunsrI, the
Court decided that her evidence could
not be received, and she retired. Mr.
Higgins said, as the question might
have an important bearing on orhe,
cases, he would file exceptions To the
decision.
Jane Kelley was recalled, and test.
fed that Mr.. Pritchett told her that she
could recover the machine by paying
the money on or before the lst Of Au.
gust. She denied going to Mr.. pri,.
chett and offering to let hun take the
machine.
John +. McGinnis was recalled, aud
said that when he went to Mr.. Murray,
he did not show book or coupons, saw
both Mr.. and Mrs. Murray, but did uoi
make any demand for the money he
asked for the machine,as that was what
he was sent for. The witness did not
60 to the house but once.
This closed the evidence, and the ar.
gument was opened for the plainIils by
| Mr.. Eminons. He contended that the
machine was the property of the Com.
pany, as il Lad not been sold, but only
rented 70 Mrs. Kelley. He said that as
the rent was only 81 per month, it wa,
low enough, when the wear and tear Of
the machine, combined with the risk was
taken into consideration. The lease
shows tha! the machine was not The
property Of Mrs. Kelley, and she sad
herself that it was not.
1t had been shown that Mrs. krIeys
mother had said, that The machine ar.
iongcd 10 her daughter, bat that did no,
bind her, and it had also been shooQ
that Mrs Kelley had not sold the
machine tut only left it with Mrs.
Murray as security for the debt, with
the understanding that she could redeem
| il. After viewing the evidence, he
said that this was questio;. Of ownri.
ship and asked the jury to givea verdict
FOR the Company.
Mr.. Lore cited u number Of author;
i
lowed bv Mr.. Higgins, who SAID The
amount involved in this case was small
but it was one of the beauties of our
law sl stem that "A case III which asluai.
amount was involved, received aSmuch
consideration by the Court as Oue that
involved u larger sum.
This was right and just, as |: gayca
poor man ali equal right with a rich
one. He argued that the money whrh
Mrs. Kelley had paid on the maciiur
was applied toward the purchase, and
not as rent, and that she VAS the ownr,
of the machine and could sell it if ,Ar
pleased. If there was 81 d IL on 'he
machine, Mrs. Kelley shoId haH
paid it, and the Company had no c.aM
on Mrs. Murray.
After fully reviewing the facts of LIE
case, he said these machine agents wcr
the most persistent men to be !"nrh.
they would follow II person AROUND like
wasps or flies. and people conld Noi
hel p nuying from them. They Were The
incest men in the world, until you
bought machine, and then look cut
for them.
He thought that they were foolish 70
waste. such great capabilities As they
had shown they possess, on a poor foIy
dollar sewing machine; they should
90 to New York and engage with jay
Could to assist him in the manageIneL'
of his mighty system of Railroads. II
ia man bought horse OF COW, or any
thing elise, and paid q part Of 'Aa
money, il became h.:s property, hn'
in the case Of sewing machin" i
is different you must pay the InI
amount or it belongs to the Company
Mr.. Higgins spoke nearly an hour aud
made an able argument in defense 0!
his client.
Mr.. Lore made the closing argnmcN'
and opened by saying that Mr.. Hi--~
had paid Il tribute TO the sewing mlcIN.
ay' nts, and credited them with b ~
per evering fellows with sweet viii!
ways. Now if this is so, he "u0N
advise him to take counsel with til Il"
and follow their example, and then .e
would be able to live happy and %
through the world contented. THIS
woman had paid the rent for tie
machine for one year, and then she was
unable to pay it, and did not pay a.j
for whole year, and yet the ConpaG
waited on her, and did not come ard
take the machine from her as they cou4
have done by the lease.
But rs quick as she owed a month ,
rent these people sent a constable and
levied on her furniture, and put it up
for safe They seized everything theS
could take, and then assisted by this
constable devised scheme to seize tnr
sewing machine, which they could not
take by law. This was for month ;
rent, and yet the Sewing Machine Com
lpany waited Il whole year for their rent
and then did not take the machine FROM
this woman. In the face OF this thr'
come here and talk about the hard
hearted Sewing NJ Ichine Company.
He commented on Mr.. Pritche1''
evidence, and said that he had con'tI'
tuted himself a lawyer, and passed On
the legality Of the lease. His evidence
showed that Mrs Murray had not
bought the machine, as he testified tha'
the understanding was that Mrs. Kelley
would redeem it. 1t was only left a'
security to save the furniture from sale
these people, who were able to own
houses that rented for $35 per month
had distressed this poor woman because
she could not pay her rent, and she was
glad to do anything to save her ie"
goods, as they were all she had. -,
He closed by paying a glowing trln'
ute to the Sewing Machine Company
who by their liberal terms atlOred thou
sands of women the opportunity 10
own sewing machine and earn no'
only their own living but In many
Instances that for their orphan child
rem.
!, The Chief Justice charged the jury
that the agreement was that Mrs. Kelly
was to pay the Company certain sum
lper month, and when she had paid
ISpeclted amount the machine was u
brcome her property. 1t hal pee"
shown that the Company had surren
h"red possession of the machine to MIS-
Kelley, and the case now stands as tha
OF a party trying to recover possess,lCJl
Of property that they had parted WIN