New-York tribune., 1909-07-14
ASK $3,5OO,OO0 DAMAGES
DRUGGISTS PRESS SUIT.
AHege Conspiracy by WhoIesalc
Association.

Justice Blanchard signed sn order yesterday per-
rnitting J. D. Park Sons wholesale drug firm
Of Cincinnati. 20 file a supplemental complaint in
an action brought tvelvs years ago against the
National Wholesale Druggists Association for $500
0eo damages which now is increased 20 sS.s00.o00
Some Of The firms mentioned originally as defend
ants are no longer I'm business. but those still In
existence are Schieneli1 & Co, Bruen, Ritchey &
Co. Charles n. Crittsrton COMPANY Lehn & Fink,
c. w. LdttelI 4 Co. George f. Hubbard c. ". Snow
& Co and the Coffin Reddington Company The
plaintiR charges the defendants With entering into
a conspiracy. combination and agreement of a ma
lriaus character against them. causing them 70
suffer losses amounting 70 $500. .0Go, which the
Park company itenzsE IN the new complaint.
Since the action brought In 1897 II has been
In sereraI OF the state courts and IN the federal
courts. Being based charge that the defend
had combined IN restraint OF trade. the United
States Attorney General took action against the
druggists association, causing abrogston of the
complained Of agreement. The plaintiffs, however,
nN,sted that they continued to be the butt Of the
defendants methods.
The specific complaint is that the National
Wholesale Druggists Association including the
individual defendants named, have sought 70 limit
the wholesals and jobbing trade. The plaintiffs alto
declare that the defendants tried 70 restrict many
proprietary medicines prior TO 19o1 on which there
pa tents by means Of rebate plan. u is
further alleged that the defendants drew up "tri-
among to National Wholesale Druggists AssOrta
ton. the National Retail Druggists Association and
the manufacturers Of proprietary medicines. This
combination of interest il is said. circulated cut
off lists" Of firms TO whom sales were to bs
made and white lists Of other firms who were
eligible buy.
The complaint Of tho plaintiffs sat forth that
since the action vas begun some jobbinz and
wholesale druggists have continued buy the pro-
pretary goods which they manufacture but that
II It were not for tire agreements and alleged
threats Of the defendants the Park company would
have other and large sales.
Because of the 'combina tion snd conspiracy" Of
the National Wholesale Druggists Association the
plaintiffs say that they have been coTpeed 70 pur-
chase proprietary medicines in constant use at q
great additional expense.
The plaintiffs figure out thslr damages Of 81 50o ON
as follows: Fifty thousand dollars for lost proAt
on the sale OF goods made by the Plaintiffs; s25nOo
for lost proht other proprietary goods. $4,000
fer being led to purchase proprietary goods in con
stsnt demand without rebate. discount or other al
lowance; $4,000 for lost proht specific orders IN
addition 10 those specified: 81 6n0N0N because the
plaintiffs customers left them in whole I'm part
because they believed they would be blacklisted
and subjected TO annoyance, opprohriunn ard loss
OF credit If they dealt with the plaintiffs; $500
the amount that the plaintiffs business would
have increased had it been for the alleged
combination and $4,000 for exemplary and punt
tive damages by reason Of the wilful and malt
cioUs character OF the combination. conspiracy and
agreement Of the wholesale and Iohbing druggists
Late last wear the defendants asked Supreme
Court Justice Truax to dismiss the present case
for want Of prosecution, stating that the case had
been abandoned in 1903. when the Court Of Appeals
ruled against the plaintiffs in sustaining de-
n1urrer to the complaint. Counsel for the plaintiffs
says that the vas never abandoned. but only
suspended and Justice Tr1ax decided that
suit was still on the calendar.
Norman 2. Beerher counsel for the defendants,
appealed to tho Appellats Division of the Supreme
Court last month. and pointed out that because
II was supposed the suit had been abandoned no
effort had been made TO preserve the evidence
Deaths, dissoluttons OF firms which we're defend
ants. disappearance Of witnesses and losses Of
documents had been frequent occurrences, counsel
said.
Afidavts by William jay Schieffein and other
members of the defendant firms were submitted
the same effect