The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-02-04
DISPUTE over
KARKHI CLOTH.
GiVeen Co. Wants GiVeen Re-
strained From Using Process.
SAYS He HAS TAKEN BOOKS.
Without Them Company Cannot Make Bids
For Government Contracts.
0uNNeLL COMPANY A DEFENDANT.
u Has Been Making karkhl For Both The Plaintiffs
and For GI'sen---loug Hearing Of Tho
Case Before Judge Rogers.

The manufacture OF cloth used I'm the
making OF uniforms for the United
states army needed i'm warm climates
was the chief matter of dispute i'm the
equity cause of the Giveen Manufac-
turing company of New York against
John $. Giveen. formerly president of
the complainant corporation, and the
Dunnell Manufacturing company. heard
by Judge Rogers i'm the Appellate Court
this morning. The complainant COM
pany is engaged i'm converting cotton
goods into different kinds of cloths and
especially into karkhi cloth, which is
declared TO be water proof and an ideal
| cloth for soldiers i'm the tropics.
The bill filed after reciting that the
complainant corporation was formed i'm
1896 and had large contracts with the
! United States government to furnish
Karkhi cloth, says that the defendant
| had through his position as manager of
the corporation. secured a knowledge OF
It's secret processes. The defendant
was bound by written contract while
| manager TO give all HIS time To the
corporation, and il was also entitled
TO all the devices that might result
also claims that owing to a demand of
the United States government for "A
superior kind of karkhi il desires To
enter into competition for producing the
cloth. but the defendant has the record
books OF the corporation in which the
processes are contained, and owing To
the position of the defendant IL viii be
prevented from giving in bids for
karkhi cloth.
The bill further states that the Dun-
nell Manufacturing company had notice
or the true relations between the de- |
fendant and complainant. but had done |
work for him. A temporary Injunction !
was asked Tor TO restrain the Dunnell !
manufacturing company from convert |
ing any cotton stuff into karkhi cloth
ana delivering up any samples II might /
nave or its expenses being paid: that
the company be restrained from work
ink on karkhi cloth for the defendant or
any one else. Also that the defendant
deliver up all books. all samples Or
dered made by him previous To his leav
ing the company January 20. and be
restrained from using information oh
tained I'm confidential way.
The defendant claims the complain
ant corporation seeks to take advan-
tage of his knowledge obtained by
study in the production of this valuable
He admitted he did nor teIl |
1
facturing company of his intention TO
go into the manufacture OF karkhi ON |
his own account.
Howard :. Cans. secretary of fbe !
corporation testified de-
lehuaht was one OF the original incor-
porators. first being secretary and di-
rector and last October elected presi |
dent From July ~ 1897, to January 2s
1879, he had charge Of the manufactur. |
ng OF the corporation. Defendant was
ne practical man. tended TO the pro- ,
,esses OF treatment of goods and con-
erred with mill owners and went
abroad Tor designs at different times I
According TO statements of defendant I
% witness, the United States govern 4
nent had accepted last July the cloth I
made under his direction az The stand a
Lrd cloth for uniforms in the army. II n
icing equal to that used in the British
rmy. Witness said the defendant had
ntered into written agreement with
ne complainant. copy Of this agree
nent was produced and bore date of G
ulY, 1896
The copy Of the agreement was read
nu IL showed the capital stock had
een placed i'm the hands of r. New
'ork party for five years as trustee c
nd in case OF the defendant withdraw Z.
1g from the corporation he was nor a
D use the name Of Giveen I'm any pro- "
ess or converting cotton goods. Mr.. &
air Sdlu ueIeHuant entered into the n
mploy Of the corporation under this ir
ereement whoCh also provided Mr. al
Tween was to give his time to the b
usiness Of the corporation. The Dun ID
ell manufacturing corporation was
ow engaged i'm furnishing goods for
le complainant corporation
Witness said that I'm "a letter press
ook kept i'm desk OF the complainant r
'rporation he saw an order sent 10 tho A.
unnell Manufacturing company with "
le name Of the GiVeen Manufacturlng w
'mpany stricken ont and the name OF fr
,hn S. Giveen put I'm it's place. There on
as also an instruction IN tho o~der Ia a.
ark the karkhi United States Karkhi .u
10 complainants being marked - veen
arkhi. Other orders n copy Of the one D1
st referred to being produced I'm court -
ere. witness said. seen by him i'm which
veen's name was put I'm place Of the
mpany. At this time John s. Giveen
as In receipt Of a salary Of $4,000 a .,,
ar and held three OF the Is shares Of -
o common stock ca
Mr.. Cans said he had a talk with the
Of the Dunneli Manu- IN
cturing company and told him there ,a,
's violation Of trust or Mr.. Giveen's T,,
It. but the companys representative e.,
III the company would take no mart
thc controversy. but would unless
strained, deliver the goods IN It's pos
'sion In the usual course OF trade
)n cross-examination witness said no
ned three shares of the preferred Ter
ok and his father. Levi s. Cans was let
~ owner Of preferred stock and prsc- for
ally all the preferred stock WAS cor
ned hy his fathers family. wit
IS SAID he was member Of the bar
the state OF Now York. having been see