New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-05-02
THE COURTS.
TESTIFYING AGAINST lie BOUTILLIER.

TESTIFY1NG AGAINST LIZ BOC lil1LiEr"
sEvERA1 WITNESSES EXAMINED IN THE SUIT
BROUGHT BY THE JAEGER COMPANY.
Judge Gidersleeve returned TO the Superior Court
yesterday after Illness OF several weeks ana 100"
up the case OF the Jaeger Sanitary Wooilen system
Company against George lie Boutiler Tor an ah'seu
Illegal use OF the name "Jaeger"
The first witness called was Miss Hooper, WIN -
on the stall OF The Dry Goods Chronicle She 'oid
OF having gone to lie Bou,illlers store and OF inter
viewing the clerks there the subject OF sehis 'e
Jaeger goods. The one to whom she spoke 'ou Nv,
that the reason they sold them as Jaeger ""' '"'
they would not sell as we'll under any other name
"Why should not use IL y she declare" INV .'''
said 10 her, and then added We know good tang
when we have it, This witness was croSs-eNaihiheu
bv John Delahunty who appeared for the defendant
but her testimony given on the direct eAaihihauoh
not shaken
The next witness examined by W. J. Curtis. who Is
associated with a. H. Stoiber as counsel lor the
nlantif. was Mr. Petri. the wood engraver Ills
testimony made the defendant sqnirm. some time
900 copv OF the catalogue issued 10y the plaintiff ana
t,e ono distributed by the defendant introduced
I'm evidence On the back OF each OF them was a cut
The cuts on both almost exactly alike. Mt.
Delahunty contendod TINT this Inference which the
counsel tried to the Court draw from the SINH
,aritv OF the cuts was unfair, for the reason that the
cut on the back OF the catalogue Issued 10y lie Bou-
filler was an exact reproduction OF actual photo
graph OF the place where the goods sold by his client
were made.
Mr. Pe,ri swore that he made the woOdcut from
which the picture on the back OF the lie Bon'iiier
catalogue was printed. He said further that MI
Loeb the manufacturer OF the underwear sold by lie
Boutlier, had brought one of Jaeger Catalogues 10
him and ordered him to produce cut exactly IKE
the picture on 1t, with the exception that some oil
the workpeople in the place should nave shsn"!
different appearance when the cut was examiner
closely The witness declared that he followed theSe
Instructions Mr.. Delahnny did not link II worm
while TO cross-examine this witness.
Dr. ii. Enderman again called, ana rPlcrr'u
once more 10 the large amount Of cotton which be had
,ound in the goods sold by lie Boutlcr. lie testified
concerning the contention that small quan'lty o COZ
ton mixed with wool would prevent goods so rea'eu
from shrinking. This assertion was maue 10y W.
Delahunty when the case was up before ana inc
declaration was made by him that lie Boutilers goods
were made I'm this way. and were consequently pe'oi
than those sold hy the Jaeger Company. DR.. Ehuer
man told how he had taken pieces OF exactly 'he Sane
size from garments which We're mace Oh All "oo'
those containing 80 1-2 per cent cotton ana those
which had So IL per cent of cotton All three vi
these classes shrunk almost the same amount "heh
Immersed in water at temperature OF about % ue-
grees. which contai,ed a small amount OF ammonia
He also made tests in water at temperature oil ABOUT
90 degrees In this the material containing 70 L.
per cent cotton shrunk in length ana lhoreiS'u !"
width about the same arount, so that the area ~
fore and after the immersion was abou; the SAINT
The action of this water on the allwool garment WAS
olso about the same that II was on That when con-
tanned some cotton. Some Of the genuine Jaeger gar
ments were then introduced and the plainns res'eu
their
Mr.. Dclahunty began his case by m'rHuci"e a"
affidavit made by J. II. Lamb. OF the Sta'lSn''l ue
partment of the Clstom House lie declared 'ha'
this testimony was introduced for the purpose Oh c"
tradicng the testimony of Mr.. schaet"r the pr'Si
dent of the Jaeger Company, concerning the amount
of business which that company had done. Mr. Della
buntv asserted that 1t was shown by these statistics
there was not so much woolen goods imported III Tue
years 1891 and lo92 Mr.. schacfer had sworn his
firm had sold.
Mr. Curtis objected to this testimony not on 'h'
ground that this improper way to put II before
the Court as that was conceded by the defendant ;
counsel, If the plaintiff objected 10 IL, put Oh 'ne
ground that 1t was Incompetent: and immaterlai.
Judce Gildcrslceve said that IL was, OF course hot
at all conclusive but he would accept IL for wha IL
was worth, as 1t might have tendency WIN olher
tsst,YnopE which might h. mtrodnced l'ier !" SiN
this morning.