The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1904-02-06

the Mschanics Clothing company had not
been substanuated by any other affdavft.
while Il had besn repudiated By the affi-
davits OF several persons for defendants.
DOING NOTHING WRONG
II the eomplainants have Withdrawn
the advertise nj ant and are not containing
business under such methods and DO not
represent themselves as having con-
tract with the plaintiffs. then Attorney
Bassett declared that his clients were do
ing nothing wrong, The plaintiffs part,
them in pads to subsoriberss the sub
scrfbers as agents deliver the stamps TO
collectors; the stamps were by the plain
tins admittedly transferable; The De
chase them and the motion for an In
Junction should be denied.
ARGUMENT FOR INJUNCTION.
The closing argument for oompiainai.ts
was then commenced by Mr.. Crisp OF
New York city, who declared that from from
OF the bill been making fraudnlent use
OF the property Of the plaintiffs. He
then begged the consideration OF the
paper by the Mechanics Clothing com
pany, announoinf that II the court to-day
denies the sought for injunction and we
are victorious we will give three green
trading stamps instead of one."
How fragrant to claim that the de-
fendants are not continuing business un-
der such an advertisement fraudulent
pure and simple, and In anticipation OF
Crisp
QUOTED JUDGE colin
Furthermore, he quoted q decision ef
Judge Colt OF the United States court
In the celebrated controversy over nme
Juice bottles TO the effocf that said
bottles or any other article may be
destroyed or set aside, but cannot be
used q second time fraudnlentiy for any
other purpose that that originally In
tended. Mr.. Crisp, therefore. insisted
that the stamps must be, under the con-
tract Of the Sperry and Hutchinson COM
pany with the merchant collected In the
regular way and only when presented In
books would they properly be redeemed
The defendants had sold these stamps 10
other merchants and thus they entered
into unfair competition with plaintiffs
He netx proceeded to call attention to
the admitted right OF the plaintiffs to re-
strict title to their property IN their
dealings direct with their subscribers.
the merchants with whom a contract a
made for the benefit of the merchants
customers.
Replying to Attorney Bassetts claim
that the trading stamp system Of plaiuttns
was Illegal under the statutes OF Rhode
Island Mr.. Crisp declared that ne be-
lieved that such law was uncons.itu .ional
In conclusion. Mr.. Crisp claimed that an
Injunction should be granted for three
reasons. First. that the defendants had
been notified repeatedly they were max
ing merchants violate their contracts with
piaintiffsj second. defendants had fraudu-
lently gone to, purchased OF and sold
stamps to customers of Sperry & Hutch
inson. thus defrauding the latter of their
rights: third, the continuation OF deoer-
tive advertising and fraudulent announce
meuts in anticipation Of the decision OF
the court. For there reasons, ne hoped
that the Injunction would be granted.
MORE AFFIDAvrTS COMING.
At the request of Attorney Bassett, he
was given By tbs court until Monday TO
file sffidavits IN rsbuttal TO the sffidavits
in the behalf of plaintiffs OF J. J. Ross,
Lydia Ross And James Miliigan IN refer
spce to the interference Of the Mechanics
Clothing company with tho ousinesa ma
merchants OF the Sperry a Intohinson
company. The restraining order still
stands.