The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-04-09
WATCH 9RBS1R SUED.
Fraud Alleged Against the
Combination-Half a Million
Damages Claimed.

NEW YORK, April 8, 1895.-The suit
for $50O000 damages brought by the Deu-
Der Watch Case Company against all the
firms in the Watch case Trust, in which
conspiracy is alleged, finally came to
trial in the Supreme Court today be-
fore Judge McEennan. All the firms and
companies comprising the alleged trust
are made Individual defendants, and
are as follows:-The American Waltham
Watch Company, the Bay State Watch
Case Company, nlhe Brooklyn Watch Case
Company, the Cheshire Watch Company,
the Courvoisier Wilcox Manufacturing
Company. the Elgin, the Howard, the
Illinois, the Keystone and the Seth
Thomas Companies; Joseph Fahys & Co.,
Bates & Bacon, H. Muhrs. Sons and
Dnhme G Co. The defendants comprise
the flower of the jewelry trade in the
city and country in general, and the suit
is the outcome OF the fight that was
waged by the plaintiff against the So
called "Wateh Case Continuation in
which there were millions of dollars spent
in warfare on both sides, with the result
that the plaintiff practically broke the
trust and finally brought the prices of
watch cases and movements down lower
than they have ever been in the history
Mr. Delber was often quoted as saying
that he would bankrupt himself, but that
to this end he bought movement factories
BROKE UP THE COMBINATION.
In June, 1892 Deuber started the jew
eIry world by bringing this suit for dam
ages. There We're also a number of suits
brought in the United States Circuit
in the trade, and the granting by many
firms OF rebates in violation of the trust
agreement, finally broke up the eombina-
ton, and there is today no price comDl-
nation in the watch trade
The plaintiff alleges in his complaint
that there was q combination formed
of November 16, 1857, in which they
agreed that they would thereafter not
sell goods. manufactured by them to any
manufactured by the plaintiff. He says
that notices were circulated in the trade
to this effect, and that many of the Gus.
this notice withdrew their patronage
from the plaintiff 1t is also alleged that
the defendants agreed to a fixed and ar
bitrary price for their goods, and that
pose of coercing and compelling the plain
tiff to join them in the combination.
VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION.
The complaint then goes on to state
that the acts perfcmned by the defen-
GantS were for the purpose of eStabhslh-
ing q. monopoly of the watch business.
and against the policy of the Constitu-
tion of the United States, and to cut
this plaintiff off from amy participation
in the business unless it Joined in this
Illegal and vicious conspiracy and the
acts of the defendants hereunder in
furtherance thereof, as alleged. and to
crush competition for their private emo
lument contrary to the benefit of the
public, and the said defendants by the
combination Tnaliciously intended to in
lure this plaintiff and drive 1T out of the
business and prevent it from selling
watch cases and deprive it from any
profit thereflom and irnpoverish the
plaintiff and al IT'S artists. woTkmen and
employees and their families. who would
of necessity be reduced to beggary and
ilfeneSs.' -
SAYS HE WAS BOYCOTTElD.
The plaintiff also states that the COM
bined manufacturers were effectual. and
that large quantities of goods that were
to have been purchased from the plain
tiff were net ordered, the plaintiff being
completely ostracized and hoycotted.
For this the plaintiff says he was CAM
aged to the extent of $500. 600.
IA Formidable array of counsel are In
tine case For the plaintiff appears Col
onel James and Robert Sewell and for
the defendants Eiihu Reot, Lewis CasS3
Ledyaad ard Charles g. Rushnlnre. the
latter for Mi1hrs.
All the morning was taken tsp in get
ting a jury that was not arltagonist1e
TO trust and til9lt was not acquainted IN
the jewelryl trade.