The record-union., 1894-02-05
4 MECHANICAL" Us. MECHANICS. !"
Judge Johnson's Findings and Judg-
ment Now on File
In the Case of weinstock, Lubin & Co.
Against II. Marks-The Latter to
be Permanently Enjoined.

On Saturday Judge Johnson filed his
findings and judgment in the case OF
Weinstock, Lubin q Co. against h.
Marks, in which the latter is permanently
enjoined from using the term "Mechan-
ical' to designate his store. The Court
says:
This cause having heretofore been tried
by the Court, and The Court having heard
the proofs and allegations of the parties
and the arguments of their counsel, and
the Court having duly considered the
same, files its findings of fact as follows:
That the plaintiff is now, and ever since
January, 1892, has been, corporation
duly organized under the laws of the
State of California, having its principal.
place Of business in the City OF Sacra-
mento, County of Sacramento, State Of
California.
That the said business has been known
as the Mechanics Store, One Price,"
and was extensively advertised through
out the Pacific Coast under that name by
the plaintiff and has acquired an honor
able reputation in the business world,
and the business done therein has an
nually increased and become more valu-
able, and on account OF the methods
employed, as aforesaid, by plaintiff in the
management and conduct of its said
business the plaintiff acquired, and yet
retains, a large number OF regular custom
ers throughout the said States and
Territories who knew the said business
under the said name.
That in the management and conduct
of their said business they fixed price
upon each and every article carried by
them and marked the said prices in
figures, and sold such articles at the
prices so marked and never deviated
therefrom; and they advertised the said
or of 6Oinc ht1Sfnncc W
throughout the entire Pacific Coast, and
by reason whereof it became well known
to the trade and public that at the store
of said Weinstock d Lubin only one
price was charged for goods, and that no
deviation from said price was permitted.
In 1885 the defendant established store
and commenced business at No. IA K
street. in the premises on the east of and
near the premises of this plaintiff, and
he named his store, in the year 1887, or
thereabouts, the Mechanical Store.''
That the defendant, contriving, intend
ing and designing fraudulently to inJure
this plaintiff, and fraudulently and un-
lawfully to increase his own business,
and in order to create confusion in the
public mind, and traudulently designing
10 deceive the public and people, and to
induce people to trade with the defend
ant under the believe that they were
trading with the plaintiff, and of induc-
ing the public to believe that the prem
iseS and store of the defendant were a
part of the plaintiffs said store and
premises; and, in order to carry out this
fraudulent and corrupt design as afore-
said, the defendant has persistently car
ried out system of deceit and misrepre-
sentations concerning his store and its
ownership in connection with PLAINTIFFS
store and business, as follows:
That in 1891 plaintiff erected a building,
the front of which is of peculiar arch
itecture, containing arches and alcoves.
of which there was none other similar in
the city of Sacramento; that afterwards
the defendant, in his said place of business
and adjoining plaintiffs store, erected d
building which, so far as the first or
lower story is concerned, was and is sim
liar in architecture III every respect to the
store Of plaintiff, SO much so that passers-
by were liable TO go in the store of de-
fendant, thinking that they were enter
ing the store of plaintiff; that customers
OF plaintiff in many instances did so enter
The store OF defendant, thinking they
were in the store of plaintiff, and after so
entering, and upon seeking further in-
formation upon the subject, defendant
and his servants were in the habit of de-
celvlng SAID customers, and often, in an
swer to queries, they would represent the
store to be that of Weinstock Il Lubin's,
sometimes the Mechanics Store" some
time a branch of the Mechanics Store"
and sometimes they would tell them it
was the Mechanical Store" but in such
a way and In such a manner that the GUS
toners would be deceived by the SIM
llarity of sound, and suppose defendant
said Mechanics Store" when in fact he
said Mechanical Store" but in such in
stances the words Mechanical Store"
were used with the intent to deceive the
customers as TO the true character of the
store.
That defendant had no sign inside of
his store or on the outside OF his store by
which customers could for themselves as
certain the true propretorship thereof;
that by SAID false and fraudulent repre-
sentations the defendant has deceived
many of the customers and patrons of
the plaintiff into believing that they were
in the store OF plaintiff, and that they
were trading with plaintiff, and has there
by prevailed upon them to purchase
goods from the defendant which, but for
the said false and fraudulent representa-
tiOns, they would have purchased OF the
plaintiff, and has thereby deprived plain
till of the custom of such persons, to
plaintiffs loss and to DEFENDANTS gain.
That the erection of the defendants
building to be exactly similar to plaint-
and the adoption and use of the
word Mechanical Store'' and the
absence Of any nameor sign upon
or in defendants store designating the
true proproprietorship of defendants
store were all done by the defendant for
the purpose Of deceiving the public and
more especially plaintiffs customers, and
enticing, pirating and securing the patron
age of said customers from plaintiff to
defendant.
That defendant, when dealing with such
customers of plaintiff whom he had de-
ceived as above set forth, frequently
changed the prices originally demanded
by him to lower and different prices, and
by thus changing his prices the defend
ant had imposed upon large numbers of
the customers of plaintiff, and induced
them TO believe that plaintiff has departed
from said well-known rule, and that it
could not be relied upon to sell goods at
the prices marked thereon and in said
catalogues.
That by the aforesaid means found
and stated, the defendant has diverted
from the plaintiff a large part
of plaintiffs trade and induced many
persons to trade with the defendant
who otherwise would have traded