The Hawaiian gazette., 1904-10-02
pA,ioA arNrFNCUD-
HACKFELD WINS
LITTLE LOCKER" CASE
cFrom Wednesdays Advertiser)

(From Wednesdays Advertse)
Judge Gear yesterday filed decision
in the case of Isdor Rubensteln, do
ing business as /. Rubensteln & CO..
VS.. II. Hackfeld & Co., Ltd, bill for in
junction in re the right to the exclusive
right In the use OF the brand of to-
bacco known as the Little Joker to- |
bacco, finding for the defendant on the |
ground that the plaintiff has made out
no case. The judge ordered the pre-
liminary injunction dissolved. Hyman
Bros. the predecessors of Rubenstein |
e. Co., originally had the right to the
use of the said brand in this Terri
tory, and by extensively advertising 1t |
had made 1t a lucrative business. When |
the firm changed hands Hackfeld IL
Co. secured possession of the brand. |
The court holds that the American To-
bacco Co. gave no rights to Lyman
| Bros. which they could assign to their
successor, Rubenstein & Co.
The decision in part is as follows
This is case of novel impression.
Dnigent research has not enabled the
Court to find any authority directly in
point so far as the facts of this case
|
which preliminary injunction was
granted alleges that the firm of Hyman
Brothers, the predecessor in interest of
the plaintiff, during the year 1892 ac-
quired an exclusive right in the brand
of tobacco known as the Little Joker
tobacco, land acquired the exclusive
right in said brand, and in the vending
thereof, in and for Hawaii, from the
mr.
1892 have sold Little Joker" in their own
right.
The complaint further alleges that
since 1892 and up to December list, 1903,
the firm of Hyman Brothers consisted
of II. W. Hyman, Michael Lyman,
Morris Hyman, j. Hyman and the
plaintiff, ]. Rubenstein; that on or
about Dec. list. 1903, the aforesaid part
nership transferred unto complainant
the entire business.
The complaint further alleges that
the defendant firm, Hackfeld Il Co..
"has recently and is now unlawfully
, and without permission of your orator,
, selling and offering for sale, in Homo
: lulu and elsewhere within said Teryi-
: tory said brand of tobacco" and threat
t ems to continue to do so, unless en-
= joined from so doing.
The defendant has moved to dissolve
J. the injunction, granted as preliminary
: injunction, upon several grounds stated
h in the motion.
n Upon the hearing of the motion tc
: dissolve the plaintiff was examined as
a witness by the defendant and he
e produced a letter which the plaintiff
= stated was the only written document
: he had any positive knowledge of, CIV
ing his predecessor the alleged eXclu-
o sive right set out in the bill The let
ter is from the American Tobacco
= Company" whom the evidence shows
o is the manufacturer" referred to in
r the complaint. The letter is in part as
e follows:
l. New York, Aug, 10th, 1900
d Messrs. Hyman Bros:-Referring tC
the conversation had with your Mr.
l. Hyman relative to the Honolulu terri
n tory, would say that it has been de
cided to leave the following brands il
"A your hands under conditions noted, civ
>, ing you sole control of same for thu
Hawaiian Islands, so long as you han
= die them to the entire satisfaction o
!, this company.
m The letter is signed by the American
v, Tobacco Company.
(, The first question which natural!
= presents itself is as to the right of tn
q plaintiff to claim the exclusive right
r. to sell and control the Little Joker
I'd tobacco in this Territory.
10 While perhaps the firm of Hyma1
go Bros, were ii now in existence, Nigh
n complain of the act of the American
"a Tobacco Company in giving the agenc,
OF the tobacco to the defendant. on tn
ground that the American Tobacc
Company could not arbitrarily chang
OF the agency unless there existed rea
10 sonable grounds for dissatisfaction, ca
'd a purchaser of their business. afte
ed their dissolution of the partnership in
m sst that he should be accorded tn
lie, same right?
RI 1t seems to me that the letter of II
American Tobacco Company gave lily
ne man Brothers no rights which the
he could assign To their successor 1t giy'
zee to Hyman Brothers the control of Il
ad brand of tobacco in question, witho'
re- any words showing an intent To eNtel
ng the right To an assignee, The contra
p seems to me TO be one which involve
nix a relation OF personal confidence sue
ey as must have been intended TO be e.
cy ercsed only by Messrs. ilyman Brotl
ad ers. Not only IL this true, but 1t
at also apparent that even Hyman Brou
e- ers were at liberty AT any time 10 te
ais inmate their relations with the Amer
eh can Tobacco Company, whenever The
wished 20 do so,
,n MISTAKES DIAGNOSIS.