New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-07-16
FISH BUSINESS FIGHT.
AppeIate Court Orders Ne7o Trial-
Doubts .StenOgraphers Notes.

The Appellate Division has reversed a judgment
II favor VI y. Clay Pickett by the supreme oo'I
aga.rst Jacob Michaels, directing the PeE-o I'-~S
q 81 oral contract, and has granted d new L "a
Iscaf, E.cEaeIs was in the fish business IN 4Svv
when he employed Mr.. Pickett at salary OF 80 d
week J. IS alleged that N ISL Mlchae4s iOI''-su O
corporation with George Z Corley ana f!cheI' ""
conduct a asn business at No. S44 Eighth avenue,
ana promised Pickett % per cent Of the capital
STOCK Of $1,000 and one-thlrd Of the pronts OF INC
bus.-as-. About so 90 is involved II the coiIIo
veIey and Pickett got Judgment in the sup eiie
Court directing the performance OF me alles51
ccr--e- ,..
Tcz-cgl-g 70 this. M Pickett had as witness
Corr J. Rose. u stenCgrapher, VINO sWoIe SHe W.
pres=nr ~ the Hotel Imperial when Mchaeia cailt1
Il. and that she took down q CONVEX ssll is
verbatim between Michaels and tlckeI "I4-cH
Went 10 prove all the statements OF Plckett reGtiu
zig me- contract. An appeal from the JuGehleLt, u
the SuIrerae Court was taken 10 the Appellate D!V-
sion Iy y. Henry Harris, Of 80. 20 BFoao"ay' Al
T-be a-.-5o- reversing the Judgment. and written
b. Justice Lambert, is, T. part, as iotlo"S'
The Defendant denies the making Of the contract
alleged and there is nothing in the evidence gwen
By the plaintiff TO overcome TINS DENIAL except %
may o- found IN the evidence OF q young woman
who clair1s 70 have taken stenographic report OF
Z conversation between the plalntln ana the &c
fendar- - the Hotel Imperial THIS young woman
tesrfeCg mar Tho plaintiff her in the hotel,
asked r she was q stenoEraphcr. and engaged her
70 e ra the parIor and take notes Of a converse
ro-: ~ appear guest % the holei ana hVoII
lett Tie defendant know that she was taking
notes. TIE plaintiff and defendant came INTO t.e
ra.Ilr where she was seated ana lor@t'i VIM
ihree four feet OF her, and that she look al %
i1e conversation.
There Is nothing "a the conversation as gwen
BY Tie fferr-sfT which constitutes damaging al
mission 0u the part Of the defendant II - oIlIy
Wne1 We come 10 the stenOgrapnic minutes. WHeIe
the questions are formed with great detli anu
accgracy. strongly suggestive Of tie handi"ork OF
G shlluG LAWYER that there is anything IN I's
nature II an admission Of the plaintiffs alleged
contract. These alleged minutes 90 not correspond
Wit The plaintiffs version q the conversation alu
tn forms u The questions and the answers are not
sue. s- would be expected under the circumstances
described nor do they show any Of the character
!stics which are manifest IN the conversation as
The plaintiff details f. 49,.
Either the stenographic minutes as read in ms
case are rot true. or the conversation detailed Dy
the plaintiff Is not correctly given, and we are o.
the opinion that the version given by the pIalhtih
has within il greater inherent evidence or u ut17
fuless than tina: which purports TO give the ac'u"
Conversation" 10 49,,
Al The once IF J. 5. d II a. Wise No 20 Bfo .la
street attorneys for Pickett, it was sald lial lis
case ,yCufg hz carried 10 the Court Of Appeals 1t
was also said that the stenographers report vs.
taken when lie case was n the hand OF another
law nru