The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-08-14
NO LIBEL. THE JURY SAID.
THE PRICE BAKING POWDER COM
PANY SECURES A VERDICT.


ders Were DeIeterIOus and the
brand of One so Named Happened
10 BE "Imperial."
I'VE the jury, find for the defendant"
was the verdict rendered last night in the
libel case of the Imperial Baking Pow
der Company of this city against the Price
Baking Powder Company of Chicago, for
$4,000 damages. after having been out
about three-quarters of an hour.
The suit occupied all day in the city
court. The Savannah company sued for
$4,000 damages, on account Of publica-
ton made by the Price company and
which it claimed damaged it in business
to that extent. The case was given to
the jury at 7;45 o'clock. after a most con-
else and exhaustive charge from the court
as to the different degrees of libel.
The jury consisted of Clarence o. God
frey. Thomas ]. Melvin, p. H Gearon, r.
d. Corish. N. ]. Murphy. John d. Thorn
son, N. p Corish. J. ]. Brady, Robert
]. Warrick, P. Ryan, NJ. Deegan, James
F. Kennedy.
The case was peculiar one. In 1894, and
previous to that, according to the claim
of the Price people. the latter published
an advertisement warning the public
against baking powders containing alum
as an ingredient, stating that physicians
and boards of health had classed them as
deleterious to health. The company gave
a number of the names of brands Of bak-
ing powder which it charged contained
alum, and among others one named I'M
perial" This being advertised in the pa
pers which circulated where the Savan-
nah Imperial baking powder was sold. in
jured the sale of the latter, according 10
the claims of the Imperial Baking Pow
der Company and 1t began suit against
the Chicago company for libel, claiming
the damages above stated. AS the COM
pany could not reach the foreign corpora
ton by an ordinary suit, it began pro-
ceedings by attaching several amounts
due the Price Baking Powder Company.
to force its appearance in this court.
Among the plaintiffs witnesses were
many merchants of this city and other
points, one being here from Orlando,
Fla, to prove the injury sustained by
the publication.
Mr. B. +. Bowen, the Orlando mer-
chant testified that he saw the adver-
tisement of the Price Baking Powder
Company in the Toledo, o., Blade, and
that he then refused to sell the powder
made by the Savannah company, as he
thought it referred to 1t.
Messrs. c. A. Munster, George S. Van
Horne and other merchants of this city,
testified in a general way to the injury
the advertisement did to the Savannah
companys powder, stopping sales,
though before that it had been keeping
the field from the Price company's prod
uct.
Messrs. Theodore and NJ. S. Quicken
heimer, and Abe S. Guckenheimer also
testified in the matter, all stating as to
the injury done, many merchants think
ing that the warning was against the
Imperial powder made here, and class
ing IL as an alum powder.
For the defense, Mr.. John Morriss,
treasurer of the company, testified at
length about the matter. He stated, in
a general way, that powders with alum
in them were dangerous to the public
health, and had so been considered. His
company had compiled a list of the
brands that were known to contain alum
and had printed an advertisement, long
before the Savannah company was in
existence, giving the names of such pow
ders. Among others was one named,
Imperial" but he denied that it had
any reference to the Savannah company,
saying that it was a Chicago product.
He stated that there were several other
Imperial" powders; one made in
Charleston, one in Toronto. and others
in the west, there being six or seven
with that name. He testified further
that his company's advertising was made
up several months before the ADVERTISE
ment appeared, as it was large depart
ment of its business and one that re-
quired a good deal of attention He did
not know of the Savannah company, till
his companys accounts here were at
tached and a suit begun. In the adver-
tisement then running here cut out the
name Imperial" in Difference to the
local company.
The fifth biennial report of the Mime
sofa state dairy and food commissions,
covering the year from July 81, 1893, to July
81, 1894, was submitted in evidence. This
report contained a warning against the
use of powders containing alum and gave
a list of 1893 brands which contained alum.
In this list was the Imp made by
Merriam, Collins & Co., of Chicago. It
was this brand that Mr.. Morriss stated
his company was warning the public
against as an alum powder.
Mai. Meldrim, for the plaintiff, made
the cross examination very strict, but Mr.
Morriss never lost his temper, though
pressed many times with very difficult
and searching questions.
Mr.. S. b. Adams of Denmark & Adams
made the opening for the defense, and
he made a strong plea for his clients,
giving the question of libel full scope. He
explained what the company had done
in the matter and stated that the testi-
mony showed that it had advertised in
this same manner long before the Savan-
nah company began business. in 1912,
and he denied that the publication had
any reference to the Savannah firm, and
claimed that the evidence so proved
Maj Medrim had the closing argu-
ment. He reviewed the testimony thor
oughly scathingly denounced the meth
DDS of the Price company and claimed
that the evidence all showed the ami
mus of the concern. He claimed that
the Savannah company was winning the
business away from the Chicago firm, and
that II tried to get even in this manner.
He alluded to the manner IN which his
questions had been answered by Mr. Nor
riss which he denounced as most evrs-
I've, and he alleged that all the evidence
made a case Of libel without a shadow
OF a doubt.