New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-02-12

chase yet governments are coming by SLOW de-
ees-lamentaby slow ones in This country-to
extend to the buying classes certain amount
OF protection against fraud
In England for instance. there is statute re-
lating to deceptive labels on drygoods groceries
and other articles of commerce. which is known
as the Merchandise Marks act" and recent
prosecution under this law in London has at
tracted good deal Of attention. The fraud that
was alleged In the complaint did not involve
large sum and the persons who considered
themselves deceived were OF no prominence In
business or society. but the fact that famous
organization o. manufacturers. the linen inter
est Of Belfast assumed the role Of plaintiff In
the cas-, has given it no little prominence.
Several witnesses testified that they had
bought at a we-known drygoods house. at
notably low price. some "huckaback towels That
were represented to be linen. by which term they
Understood that pure linen was meant Subse
quently It appeared that the towels contained
ni-re or less cotton. The salesman who sold one
particular batch Of these towels testified that ne
was connected with the woollen department. and
presided only temporarily at the linen counter on
this occasion He admitted having called the
goods linen" but was sure that he had not used
the words all linen" The bill. or invoice. was
experts from other mercantile establishments,
who were put on the stand. said that they
thought the designation not quite accurate.
though they did not regard the transaction
as fraudulent.
The most important witness. though the
man who had served the house in question as
buyer for nine years, and who professed to have
been acquainted with the linen Industry for
thirty years. He bought the towels in question
at 43i pence apiece. and they retailed by his
house at 81 pence He aware that pure linen
huckaback towels OF the same weight and size
usually retailed at 81 pence. Sharp examination
could not elicit from him an admission that the
low price of the goods excited his Suspicion he
cC-.la not remember. on the witness stand. how
lcw ne had been able 10 buy all-nen towels be-
fore; he insisted that he had not detected the
sizing employed to conceal the cotton and give
il the appearance OF linen, and subsequently,
when he was called upon by his employers to
check up the invoices and he passed this item
as correct. he overlooked the word union
therein. having given his sole attention TO prices
and quantities. 1t came out in the testimony
that the term union" meant a mixture but the
buyer pretended that he had not discovered it's
presence in the invoice until after the lawsuit
had been begun.
The presiding Magistrate. VINO decided without
delay that the defendant firm was guilty based
his conclusions on three facts: The Of a
ticket in the window that described the towels
as "linen". the occurrence OF the same word i'm
the bill rendered TO the purchaser. and the Ian
guage Of the salesman. He held that when a
woman asks for linen" goods she means goods
that are all linen. or substantially If any
one tells her that an article is linen. with no
it is all linen. The fact pleaded in extenuation