New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-04-07
EVIDENCEABOUT UNDER WEAR
WITNESSES TELL ABOUT REPRESENTATIONS
THAT WERE MADE TO THEM

WITNESSES TELL ABOUT REPRESENTATIONS
THAT WERE MADE TO THEM
The principal evidence given In The suit in which
the DR.. Jaeger sanitary woollen Company Is trying to
prevent the firm Of Gcorgr L. Boutier from using
the name Of jaeger before Judge Gildcrseeve In the
superior Court Yesterday. was that 81 two sa'eswomcn
employed by the Jaeger company to TO lie Boulers
store and buy Of the underwear which lie was
selling the genuine Jaeger mnderxca
The first subject taken up after the cross examna
ton OF Herman scheef'er. the president Of the Jae.
ger company. tie reading Of the examination Of
Goieh Benger. of Wilhelm Bcngers sons. OF Stuttgart,
Germany. who make the Jaeger underwear. By this
II was shown that DR. jaeger. after whom the under
wear In question Is named was II member OF lie firm
which manufactures the goods sold BY the plaintiff
company. The defendants had also annexed some
heterogeneous to the conlmssion by which they
tried to show that underwear known as Jaeger under
wear had been sold In Germany for a long time. ana
for several years fore the present firm. with DR..
jaeger member had been brought into existence.
The answers. while admitting that other firms had
attempted sell what they called Jneger underwear
showed that proceedings had been TAKEN successfully
In many cases. to prevent them hom using the name
Jaeger II also shown that DR.. Jaeger was at
the present time active member Of the German
firm.
After the reading Of this document Mary Ashmead,
Jaeger CO. rany. was called to the stand. She tod
of having visited the store OF the defendant on March
! last and inqulring for jaeger underwear. sales
woman. whom she identified as Miss Anna Bowling,
waited on her. and showed I" her some underwear
which the witness declared the saeswoman told her
was genuine Jaeger goods The witness asked Miss
Bowling II the vest which she showed was exactly
the sold 10y the jaeger company In Broad
way. The answer WAS. according to the Witness
Ia .i-atx. LINDA
goods. The witness then asked why 1t was that LIE
Bouiillier could sell the goods that were sold
by the jaeger company for so much less tinn they
were sold by the latter company. The clerk replied
that lie Boriillier did not have to pay any royalty
to Dr. Jaeger. H. tho other firm did and 1t was for
this reason that his prices lower. The Witness
copied some Of the advertisements In lie Bou'iliers
store concerning the Jaeger goods.
One Of them read 90 Ladies' genuine Jaeger under
vear at anti monopoly prices Another read the
same except that the word gcntlcmcno' was In the
place Of "lades'.' Copies OF these advertisements
were presented exhibits In the case Another longer
advertisement. setting forth the excellence OF the
jaeger underwear more nj length. was also put III
evidence Tho wilrcss received from the snleswonan
a catalogue OF the underwear sold By lie Boutllli"r.
This catalogue was almost Identical with the one
issued by the Jaeger company. IL lnd n picture on
the back almost exactly HE the one on ia" Jaeger
catalogue. The def ndant's counsl objected to the
Inference which the lawyer Oh the other side was
evidently trying TO have lie court draw from ms
fact and he insisted that the picture on the back OIL
the defendants catalogue was photograph ~ tue
actual place where the goods sold hS the uciehuah'
were sold. ,-,oaoo,
ipon cross examination this witness acknowiedeed
TINT sh. went TO H. ouiIlliers store simply Tor IN"
uurpos. Of getting evidence for this trial. Her les
iimony on the direct examination was not shnkeh'
however. . -. ,.. ..,o l..
The next witness was Miss Hattie barnett: VINO Is
ALA n salcswoman IN the Jaeger c'mphhy S'orc'
AT. hs4nf' fIfN
ndorveor which She testified. the saleswoman for
tLe defendant assured her vas the Genuine !'cE'r
underwear and the reason II could he sofa by ~
outillIer for less than the price '~kc ny tie Jaee
comn,ny was the fnc that the latter llnd 10 Phy +"
roynIty 10 Dr. Jacgcr and the defendant Ola not sns
maid two visits 10 the store, on" III t" 'i vi io"
and IA. other IN last February. -
That finished the proceedings Of the day. ana the
case was adjourned until this morning