The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-06-07

the suit, therefore, 1t is necessary to show that the possession of these goods was obtained by fraud practiced upon pudiating the contract.
 do not care to discuss the question of the right to repudiate the contract. | think there can be no question about that. McKessen & Robbins and Love- | land both had contracts with Hartman | to enable them to procure Peruna, ana | the claim is, that in violation of these contracts, they entered into a conspira- cy with John D, Park & Sons Company | to obtain Peruna from Hartman and ship 1t to that company. the company being engaged quite extensively in the
 business of selling Peruna, and having | no relation or contract with Hartman | which would enable 1t to obtain Peruna | in any other way.
 | If this be true, undoubtedly Hartman
 had a right to repudiate the sale and | retake the property. But It is said the
 contracts with McKessen & Robbins and Loveland are executory, and that | Hartman must look to them for dama- ges for the wrongful disposition of the | goods, and cannot attack the sale. The | charge, however, as I understand it, Is | that this particular carload of Peruna
 was obtaoned by fraud practiced upon Hartman. and In furtherance of the i scheme by which John D. Park & Sons | Company sought to obtain Peruna. when | they could not otherwise have obtained 1 It. The representation of McKessen &
 Robbins to Hartman was this: Under | our contract we want to buy this l Peruna. put it upon the market and 1 sell 1t as your agents, as we have been | doing heretofore" when In fact that
 was as misrepresentation; they did not want 1t for any such purpose. but
 wanted 1t for the purpose of selling
 1t to John D. Park & Sons Company,
 in violation of their contracts with | Hartman. - | ha sought to De elicited from this witness. Ambro K. Park, is relevant as tending to snow | this fraudulent scheme by which the Peruna was obtained from Hartman.
 The witness repeats over and over again that the answer to the questions | put to him will not incriminate him or will not subject him to penalty or | forfeiture; but, as have already stated. his sole ground for refusing | to answer Is that the questions are ire l Ieyant to the Issues in the case pend- d- | ing in the New York Courts, and that trade secrets. The Court Is of the opinion that the testimony is entirely relevant, and that there are no traoe secrets disclosed. - John D, Park & Sons Company Is fight ing Hartman and the trust organisa- tions, as they are called. which are en gagged in this business; that this nrm fs outside and independent; but as the same time are trying to get these goods
 bu inairect methods, and the trade secret set up here is that if Park dis
 closes the names of the men ne uses
 Hartman 1t will prevent him in the future from fraudently obtaining goods in that way. Well. that Is hardly a trade secret that should be protected by
 The line or examination here, in the opinion of the Court, was legitimate, and counsel for the plaintiff in the case
 has stated to the Court here that IL IS
 his purpose and intention to keep with,
 in the rule of relevancy and not to cal out or seek to call out from this Wit
 ness anything that would not be en- tirely relevant to the issue in the re- plevin suit. ., 1,,,-.
 should instruct counsel as to the line
 of questions to which the examlhatIon
 should be confined ThS Sot6 Goust stdes esnap are able; they know what is relevant to the issue. It Is a simple issue, ana they
 know what Is relevant to the issue and the Court expects them, oi oou uise, 'd to keep within the rule and not go go outside of 1t to ask impertinent ques- tions which may be annoying 10 the witness, but would not contripute any :. =
 thing to threw light on the ma,er ,heee will be no trouble on that score what | this witness knows relative 10 the iransaction under investigation. take
 there Tiii be be HG %Itness seouGte Knows @ reia | five to the transaction under investi-
 gation In the Federal Court at Bunalo should be disclosed. and any docu-
 wSIeS nShss may m throw light on it, should be
 produced. He should answer the
 auestions and produce the papers ana | documents, if he has them' ana the
 o1vT' MT ReedNAs to the subpoena--do vou not want us to issue a formal sup l poena IA ,o-not.ar
 1t is necessary, but 1t seems to M navs
 been the practice, and I will conform
 to the practice and make an ordei
 directing the Clerk doos os tsan thiS cGo for the hooks and papers called for.
 MT. Shroder-I do not insist upon sntS issuing of the subpoena; am satlsheo
 with the order, Your Hon9hr; nthcrl
 Mir Shroder-There is one line oi
 questioning which I would like to have | defned so as to avoid any future con troversy. If possible. and that is. thos,
 t'nestiona that relate to what John ID Dark & Sons Company did with tht goods after they received them. .
 submit that is plainly Irrelevant to th' Issua and immaterial. ., | The Court-Well, do not see '"'
 Mr Reed-I do not intend to pursue that. Your Honor, or to ask Tor any names. ~ Soa.,ra ot
 ,ha caae that justifies counsel in going
 further fur than he would otherwise D, D,
 antitied to 20. This is an unwilling
 witness. and in. measure might o' dealt with as if upon cross -examina tI0nt hut counsel should keep strictly
 within the line of relevancy and not gl into the private business of this hrm %
 which has no reference to the matter 1 roy, upder investigation.
 l Mir Reed-I do no tintend to examine as to the disposition of the goods al all specifically: ,,.,.oa oarno,
 '1,bat relevancy 1t would have t(
 snow what they did with the goodi 1 oitH tnrrrn rda-C Cincinnati Enquirer AdN