The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1895-10-23

this endorsement Of Mr.. Lamson that an
honest .endeavor" is the exception and
therefore worthy Of comment7
Your correspondent would make II APP
pear that his witness, George X. Remng.
ton, was instructed to do some dishonest
act. The evidence showed nothing OF the
kind, but 1t did show that be was inatten-
tive to business and disobeyed instructions
in failing to report to party in Montpelier,
for which he was repri handed, and on
cross. examination when on the witness
stand admitted that his reply to letter OF
criticism was as follows: II have no hard
feelings towards you for what you have
written, for l know 1t is all true" and &C.
knowledged on the stand that the criticisms
were merited.
This witness of Lawyer Lamson was so
"earnest and ,nest " that he could hardly
wait for the questions to be asked to say
something to iniure his former employers,
but on examination he was made to
deny the important parts, being faced by
letters of his own writing that were exactly
contradic 'ory OF his direct testimony.
Now let us pay little attention to the
merits of the case. Your correspondent
says that when the United States Separator
was sold 10 Batchelder q Co. they had sew
eral De Laval Separations doing good work
in several stations. The testimony showed
that the United States Separator was sold
in November, 1893 aud the first De Laval
was not sold until the next month, Decem-
Der. The United States Separators were
sold direct to Batchelder ~ Co., in Boston,
instead of through Mr.. Slocum. This an
gered Mr.. SluCum, the local agent Tor Batch
elder & Co. at Montpelier, to that extent
that he wrote letters and boasted to parties
that the Vermont Farm Machine Company
would suffer financially for going around
him.
There was no fault found with the United
States machines until Mr.. Slocum began to
put in his work to beat the Vermont Farm
Machine Company through finding fault
with the United States Separators.
The evidence showed that the machine
over which the suit was, did fill the guar
autee but the lawyers for the defense sue.
ceeded in Juggling in several other matters
or cases that evidently befogged the jury,
and upon which the case goes to the SUI
preme court, and upon which there is no
doubt that the court will order new trial
with these outside matters eliminated.
On the merits of the two separators, it
was shown by more than TWEEN witnesses
that those factories using the United States
Separators averaged To make butter from a
less number of pounds of milk than Batch
elder q Co.'s factory aud branches. At
Batchelder & Co.'S branch at South r lyal-
ton it to Jk from twenty two To wenty -four
pounds Of milk to make a pound Of butter.
The same patrons took their milk TO the
Sharon Creamery, using the United States
Separator, where it took only Ell 5hteen to
IL
butter. Result-Batchelder 81 Co. lost all
their patronage and were compelled to
take down the building and leave the
town.
Witnesses, patrons of Batchelder & Co.'S
Washington branch, testified that they did
not get so good results as when setting their
milk at home, and left off carrying milk.
Witnesses from Plainfield testified that
there was much dss abstraction with the
poor results at that branch. Patrons from
Middlesex testified that they were dissatis-
fed with the returns from Bachelor & Co.
and set milk at home; one got forty four
pounds of butter more in one month aud
another got forty-two pounds more in
month than at the creamery. Patrons from
Orange testified that they sent milk to
Batchelder & Co.'S Washington branch,
but were dissatisfied with returns and set
milk at home; one got fifteen per cent more
butter and another got twenty-five per cent
more butter at home than credited at the
creamery. Professor Hills testified thai IL
the separators did good work there should
be on an average fifteen per cent more but
tar than the Babcock test showed Mr. Gill
son, butter maker for Batchelder & Co.,
testified hat there should be about fourteen
per cent more butter than test.
Returns put in evidence made by Batchel-
der u Co. to the patrons OF their creameries,
covering seven months, average to show
surplus of less than four per cent Where
cent of surplus go to If it was not lost in the
poor skimming of separators they use? Re-
turns from creameries using the United
States Separators showed that their patrons
got the full amount of surplus, averaging
over fifteen per cent. Results speak for
themselves. Do these results look as though
any attempt was made to " foist worthless
machine" on Batchelder & Co.? Certainly,
patrons of the United States got the best
results.
G IL 81,
trial be an " eye-opener " to the patrons of
Bachelor & Co. creameres, in that they
can now see in comparison with patrons of
the creameries using the United States
separators that they have been losing heav.
lily all these months? The lawyers did seem
to befog the jurymen, but we doubt if they
can befog the patrons who see the small re-
turns coming in. The supreme court will
clear away this fog for a new trial.
VERMONT FARM MACHINE Co.