New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-04-06
MORE UNDERWEAR IN COURT
THE CHARGES AGAINST lie BoUTILLIER.

TESTIMON IN TIE SUPERIOR COURT-IMlTAI-
ING JAEGER BRANDS.
Before Judge Gdcrslecvc yesterday, In the Superior
Court there was n regular inundaon OF gray phd
white underwear and delicate woollcn abrlcswomcns
and mems carmcnts-und fabrics which had been sold
over the counter rs pure wool and paid for rs suc
by unsuspecing customers which the castc soda test
revealed aftcrward To be- onehali cotton Big hcaps
mute but eloquent witnesses rested against
the rear wall of the room and brought 10 the
front Us needed In the OF the DIR. jaeger sanitary
wOolen system Company against George Le Doutl'
lier for Illegal and fraudulent use Of the name
Jaeger 1t was the second days proceedings
w. j. Curtis and A. H. s'ober conducted the case for
the Jaeger Company and John Dclahunty appeared Tor
the accused Fourtcenth-st merchant.
Herman Schacfcr. president OF the jaeger Company
was recalled the stand and gave additional evi-
dcnce regarding h, visits 20 lie BOuticr's store ana
the sale 10 him there OF underwear falsely represented
TO him 10 be the genuine "all.woo' Jaeger under
wear.
Catalogues made in imitation Of the Jaeger Com
pany's catalogues, with brands. tables. cuts ana
samples almost Identical. all. tho plaintiffs counsel
maintained, done carry the fraud and deception
on the public. distributed AT George lie Boulliers
store. placed in evidence. one OF the samples
In the catalogue had been analysed and found 10 con
tain 40 per cent OF cotton. large number OF lie
B0utilIcrs advertisements were produced. In when
the name jaeger and Jaeger underwear were dis
played In large type. and the Information gwen out
that the only difference between the Jaeger Company
and that OF L. Doutilllcr In the fac smile sigma
turc Of Or. Jaeger used by the Jaeger Company. 1t
was shown that the brands used In stamping their
cheap underwear similar to tho brand OF the
Jaeger Company, and In many other ways the efforts
OF lie BouiiIlier make OF the term Jaeger and
the devices used in advertising by the Jaeger Com
pany were developed. These methods were warmly
denounced by Mr.. Curtis fraudulent. Circulars, all
bearing the same characteristics. were produced by
the plaintiffs side, the whole purpose being Mr. Curtis
asseveraied. intent 10 deceive
lie Bou,Illers attorney had. in the course Of the
proceedings challenged the Jaeger Company 70
produce witness who had been deceived and In
resi- onsc TO this Ms. Carter l.. Wormelcy, OF Rich
mond Va. took the stand. She testified that she had
been wearing Jaeger underwear 4 several years
and was her way downtown TO the plaintiffs
place 10 purchase some goods when she the signs
In lie Boutillier's window announcing that Jae ger
underwear was for sale within. she went in. asked
for Dr. Jacgcrs sanitary underwear and purchased
garments. She garment day. and
then. believing that she had been deceived and cheated
she returned the other garment That an article In
ierior TO the genuine Jaeger goods had been sold 10
her she certain. Being somewhat indignant al
being cheated, she thought. by the Jaeger Com
pany, she complained 10 The plelnin believing that
the goods had come originally from the jaeger Com
pany.
How did YOU know that the garment not OF
the Jaeger make \ she WAS asked.
"By sensation OF chillinesS.7 she replied
Mr. Deahuny wanted tic Witness reply stricken
out on the ground that She not an expert n,
TO quality Of material. "she Is no, n manufacturer
said the Defendants attorney.
NO." spoke up Mr. wormeley. decisvely, but
am n rheumatic n.aughtcr.)
a letter was produced from n buyer Of H. O'Neill
could sell genuine jaeger goods much cheaper
than the Jaeger Company.
Seaman 4. swonertOn, frdnhlin-st. dealer In knit
goods testified Ia what the trade considered
Jaeger goodS-the goods made by the Jaeger Com
pany.
similar case where that Judge referred In severe
terms Ia such practices as arr charged against L.
Bouller n that phase Of piracy known unfair
trade competition was read by the counsel for hs
plaintiff.
Mr. Dclnhuntv cros.- examined Mr. Srhaeacr as 10
DR. Jacger's connection with the Manufacture of tn"
Jaeger goods. The witness ,aid t'at the firm of
Rcnge- sons, Of stuttgart who the prlncll Stock
holders in the Or. Jaeger sanitary Woclcn system
Company. ral1 DR.. Jaeger Il royalty uf per cent.
out wherein H., cotton and wool underwear sold by
lie BOuiillier "dcviatcd" from :" the Jaeger system
"Thcrc H. no Jaeger system In controversy here, y
interrupted Mr. Curtis. That i preiencr and n
they can stand without Thu fact becoming apparent
10 the public. What complain Of. however. is
his attempt TO deceive the public into the belief that
these clrap goods are the genuine. pure. INDY ed
woollen % DDS Of the Jaeger Company By the use
Of the name Jnccrr.'
Tho cn-c will he confirmed to-day,