The record-union., 1895-12-25
SIGNS WILL GO UP.
The Case of Weinstock, Lubin & Co.
Against Marks.
Decision of Judge johnson on the Mo-
ton Made by Plaintiff in
This Case.

Following is the substance of the de-
cision rendered by Judge Johnson IN
the Superior Court in the case of Weln-
stock, Lubin & Co. VS.. II. Marks. The
court said:
The defendant in this action, from
the commencement of the proceedings
up until at least the contempt proceed
ings had sometime ago in this court,
has shown by his conduct that ne is
entitled to no such ingredient OF mercy
at the hands of the court, nor has the
court been disposed to deal with him
particularly in a merciful light.
AS remarked by the court to-day and
by one of the counsel, the supreme
Court by its decision has gone further
than 1 anticipated they would, or
had any idea they would. I had no idea
they would take as broad view OF
this question as they have They Ger
tainIy have gone far beyond my idea
of the case at the time 1 rendered my
decision
There is in my findings a findingsthat
this building was erected for the pu"-
pose of working a fraud and deceit
upon the plaintiff. l had in view that
that was one of the several acts which
he had practiced on this plaintiff.
First he erected the building by which
people were led in his store, and after
they got in the store he still further
practiced his deceit and retained many
who discovered their mistake after they
went in the store and asked the QueS-
ton, eff this is the Mechanics Store,
or if they were in Weinstock & Lubin S,
and it was in evidence that the defend
ant and his servants, his statesmen,
repeatedly made the representations
that such was the fact; that they were
in the Mechanics Store or Mechanical
Store-sometimes they would use the
word Mechanical They deceived them
after they came in his place of bust
ness. In addition to that he called it
the Mechanical Store, and not only
indicated in his architecture. but in the
name of the store. These things were
taken in consideration in making those
findings. They were all part of the
same deceit; the plaintiff was entitled
to a remedy, a relief for each of these
deceits. Relief was granted in ali of
these cases by the court. Upon two
of these grounds defendant appealed
to the Supreme Court The Supreme
Court has sustained the contention of
the plaintiff that it was entitled to
relief
But heretofore Mr.. Marks had moth
ing by which people could be unde-
ceived who went in his store. AS they
entered the store they saw no sign
above the door or at the door. When
they got inside of the store there was
nothing to indicate that it was any
other place than the place they thought
they were in-plaintiffs' store. It was
like the Mechanics Store in every par
ticular, and, in addition to that, as L
said moment ago, when they would
ask the question they were further de-
ceived by the defendant and his serv-
ants, who informed them they were in
fact in plaintiffs place of business. If
there was a sufficient designation over
each of the doors and upon the outside
of the building, some designation that
would have undeceived the people, it
seems to me that the fraud would have
been removed, and the defendant would
have been permitted to carry on his
business without interference.
Now, it is apparent to the court and
from what l saw when I visited the
stores of the plaintiffs and defendant
at the time of the trial, that if a suffi-
cient designation was placed over
Marks door, at each door of the in
gress to the store from X street, that
person would be able to designate that
fact, and would not be deceived; that
defendant would have no opportunity
then to pirate upon plaintiffs business;
he would have no opportunity to take
advantage of his neighbors-attempt to
steal away their customers after they
came inside of the store.
There should be some designation
over each door of the K-street doors of
Mr.. Marks place of business. There
should be some designation upon the
building itself-on the front of the
building. There should be some desig-
nation upon that abutment, whatever
that is, to show the people that come
from Fifth street to Fourth street the
store upon that side of the wall is Mr.
Marks store, and not the plant
ifs
l want to maintain inside of the
store, where ii can be readily seen,
mark or designation sufficiently large
and plain so that it can be seen by per-
sons who come in the store from either
door, because the way the sign that is
there now, when they enter from Fifth
street, they cannot see it. 1t should be
sufficiently large that ii can be seen by
all who enter either door. 1 will des-
ignate where they should be placed:
There should be four signs on the out
side of the store, one at each door, do
not know about the adaptability of the
doors Of placing signs or designations
on them-but there should be one at
each door, and one at this wall I speak
of; there should be one on the outside
that would attract people from the
other side Of the street. There should be
four different places where there
should be designations sufficiently
strong and broad to illustrate and dis
tinguish the plaintiffs place of business
from the defendants, and open to view
as suggested
ADJUSTMENTS.
In Daddy Nolan" Mr. Sully is in