, 1905-09-27
DIR. COHEN OBTAINS
A $3.50 VERDICT
FROM WEST JERSEY ELECTRIC co.
Cohen Brothers,, Druggists, With
Stores i'm Wildwood and HOl-
ly Beach, Sue Company
for Damages Because
Lights Were Cut Out

lie case OF Ut. Natnan "A. COneu
and Daniel Cohen, trading as Cohen
Brothers, druggists, VS.. the West Jer-
sey Electric Company, was heard in
the Gaze May County Courts before
Judges Swayze and Voorhees, on Tues
day, Sept. 18th, the opening day of the
fall term of Court. The Cape May
County Gazette gives the following ac-
count of the trial:
Nathan A.Cohen testified that he had
made a contract with the defendant
corporation to furnish current tor thirty
electric lights in his Wild wood and
Holly Beach drug stores, and notwith-
standing the fact that he had paid for
all lights up to June, 1904, the COM
pany had cut the wires and deprived
him of service about the 2Sth o. that
month; and had refused to reconnect
him with the plant since. In detail he
related having had an alteration with
the company's clerk over the payment
of four light bulbs which he had pur-
chased, and which he said were defec-
tive; the clerk had used impu-
dent language to him and after order
ing the young man off the premises he,
Cohen, had put him forcibly out of the
store. A few days later he recei ted "a
letter stating that unless he sem a
written apology to the company, or
apologized in person to the clerk, they
would cut the wires. He had repeat
eddy made written demands on the coz
loration for a fulfllment of their COLI
tract, but in vain.
SIXTY Il CENT. PROFIT
Witness said the lack of light in his
store caused his business to fall off more
than half. Witness produced his books,
by which it was claimed a loss agere-
eating more than S2500 in a year, and
declared hat in his business the profits
on sales amounted to about go per CEN
tum of the sales. He also claimed that
he had been compelled to expend 500
for oil lamps, and that after trying sew
eral systems of lighting his store was
dark and gloomy. On cross examina-
ton witness admitted that prior to his
removal to his new store a month be-
fore the wires were cut, he had not so
much local competitions; that the store
was Immediately taken by another
druggist.
The defendants admitted taking out
the light connections, but justified
their action on the ground that Cohen
Brothers owed them for laml s-72
cents-and that the plaintiffs had no
right to assault their collector WHEN he
entered the store. They called a Mr..
Shedd, who happened to be present at
the time of the %fracas, and a mild SEN
sation was caused when the witness
swore that in his opinion the collector
was impudent and offensive, and that
in his opinion DIR. Cohen was amply
justified in throwing the man out OF
doors. This evidence was so evidently
a shock to the defendants' attorney
that the spectators We're not surprised
when the lawyer arose and stated to
the Court that this man Shedd had
been interviewed by the treasurer of
the light company a day or two after
the fracas and had said in the most
emphatic language that Cohen was the
avgressor and that the young man who
went to collect the bill was not at fault;
that it was upon the strength of this
apparently disinterested statementthat
the company had decided to cut out
the lights.
The jury was out less than half an
hour, and returned a verdict of $3.50 for
the plaintiffs.
john w. Westcott and L.. Hildreth
represented Cohen Brothers and French
d Richards were the attorneys for the
light company.
ss.if