The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-06-08
IMPORTANT DECISION
BY Hon. A. G. Thompson, United States
Circuit Court.

By Hon. A. G. Thompson, United States
Circuit Court.
Samuel B. Hartman vs. William O. Feenaughty
ct al. On application to compel witness to pro-
Thompson, j. ,(orally.l
samuel Hartman who is the plaintiff 1dd s. IN an
circuit court in the Western district of New
York against Loyelend and Others. has presented
quire and compel the witness, Ambro r. Park.
whose deposition is now. being taken before the
United States revised statutes. in that cause
to answer certain questions and produce certain
He refused to answer the questions and to pro-
duce the documents upon the ground that they
controversy, and ON further ground that the an
vers to the questions would disclose trade Sc
crets.
l have read the testimony. so far as it has
been taken. and have In mind the questions
answer.
IT n e to the fssse Of the
pe 1i . Is sought to Be sse N Kn s
for that
from p laintin. and that the plaintiff. When he
discovered the fraud, promptly regudiated tn
s
| goods. In order to maintain the suit, therefore,
Is to shoW that the Of
upon the plaintiff, which justified him in re-
right to repudiate the contract: think there
bins and LoveIand both had contracts with Hart
to enable them to procure Peruna and the
they entered into conspiracy with John D. Park
Sons Company to obtain Peruna from Hart
being engaged quite extensively in the business business
sfla fb and having no relation or con
| tain Peruna in any other way.
II this be true. undoubtedly Hartman had
| right to repudiate the sale and retake the prop
l
sen Robbins and Loveland executory. and
for the wrongful disposition of the goods. and
cannot attack the sale. The charge, however.
understand it: is that this particular carload Of
Peruna was obtained by fraud practiced upon
which John D. Park s Sens Company sought to
oota1n Peruna, when they could not otherwise
have obtained it. The representation of McKes-
sen & Robbins to Hartman was this: "Undtt
upon the market and sell it as your agents as
we have been doing heretofore when in fact
for but wanted it nG for ~ ahe
purpose of selling it to John D. Park & Sons
Hartman 49,. e.. N'''
Therefore, in the opinion of the Court. the
testimony sought to be ELECTED from this witness.
Ambro Il. Park, is relevant as tending to show
this fraudulent scheme by which the Peruna
was obtained from Hartman.
The witness repeats over and over again that
the answers to the questions put to him win NOT
ar % VIII h not as Subject him
| stated. his sole ground for refusing to answer is
that the questions are irrelevant to the issues in
the case pending in the New York Courts, and
that the answers thereto would disclose trade
secrets The Court is Of the opinion that the
are trade secrets disclosed.
The suggestion is that this firm of John D.
Park & Sons Company is fighting Hartman and
the trust organizations, as they called whicft
are engaged In this business; that this firm Is
outside and independent; but at the same time
are trying to get these goods by indirect meth
DDS. and the trade secret set up here is that ii.
Park discloses the names of the men he uses t.,
frau in RI pO0dS frOm Hart nan will
prevent him in the future from fraudulently OBJ
goods that sSnd Well at Is b
The line of examination here in the opinion of
the Court, was legitimate, and counsel for the
plaintiff in the case has stated to the Court here
51 t r mis- p mt n to
or seek to call out from this witness anything
that would not be entirely relevant to the issue
It has been suggested that the Court should
instruct counsel as to the line of questions to
Court cannot do that Counsel on both sides are
able: they know what is relevant to the issue
is simple in ts and add they know what Is
them. of course, to keep within the rule and not
60 outside Of it to ask impernentt questions
would not contribute anything to throw light on
the matter under Investigation | take it there
will be trouble on that score. What this wit
V vest in he Fede,a Court at sutfale
pers in his possession. which may throw light
on it., should be produced. He should answer
y the questions and produce the papers and doc
uments, If he has, them, and the Court will sc
order. --.-'
4 Mr.. Reed-As to the subpoena-tlo you moi
want us to Issue formal subpoena
The Court-Well. had forgotten that. ar
in doubt to whether it is necessary, but II
seems to have been the practice. and l will con
form to the practice and make order d.
!. recting the Clerk of this Court to issue a sub
. poena duces tecum for the books and papers
I called for. ~ Ef'#@' SD.
Mr.. Shroder-I do not insist upon the issuing
! Of s,lhn 7 fisfioH with he orfe
Your Honor. 10.
: The Court-very we'll then.
Mr.. Shroder-There is one line of questionin:
1 which would like to have defined as t.
- avoid any future controversy. If possible, ant
D. Park & Sons Company did with the good
after they received them I submit that
III plainly irrelevant to the issue and immaterial
D. The Court-Well. I do not see the re!eyanc!
3 3 Mr.. Reed do not intend to pursue that
:. Your Honor. to ask for any names.
Y. The Court-There is feature Of the cas-
w that tustifes counsel in going further than h
10 would otherwise be entitled to go. This is Al
~ unwilling witness. and In measure might b
e. dealt with as If upon cross examinations; bn
counsel should keep strictly within the line o
relevancy and not go into the private bushes
Of this firm. which has no reference to the mat
OF ter under Investigation.
IT. Mr. Reed do not intend 10 examine as
8 the DISPOSITION of the goods EFT all. specffcali5
~ The Court-As advised I cannot wha
relevancy 1t would have to show what they dt
with the goods afterwards.
M