Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1910-07-31
PUMP Gun, LOVEANDLAWS SUIT
Ludicrous ENHANCEMENT in Court at
Ogden, Utah.
SHOT OF THE WEST
Husband Leaves Legacy In the shape
of Royalty on Firenrm InVen-
ton and widow Goes 60
Law for Results.


interesting lawsuit in the courts of Weber
county, Utah-a suit in which there was a
ludicrous intermingling of ardent love, cold,
clammy business and a pump-gun
The pump-gun, in fact. or rather the /
royalty supposed to come through pump /
gun sales, was the basis Of the suit. In the
process Of litigation, all of the love was
shot away, but Mrs Bennett-Stuart came
out victorious and henceforth, John Doug |
las Peterson, defendant, must pay to the
fair winner one-fourth OF IS cents for each |
pump-gun sold. AS the gun is popular and
the rights of manufacture are vested In an
arms company Of national repute, sales
run we'll into the thousand every month. 1t
therefore follows that the s& cents royalty
on each sale guaranteed to Mrs. Bennett
Stuart by order of court while appearing
small at first glance, really means much
in the aggregate.
Here is how 1t all came about: A. l..
Bennett, first husband Of the heroine of
this story, was a champion shot. He made
life study Of fire arms and as result,
he invented a pump-gun. Like all other
inventors, he needed money with which to
complete his invention. Enter: John Doug
las Peterson, with money. Exit: A large
share Of Benefits interest in the pump
gun. Then, with money to back him, Ben
nett soon perfected his gun and brought 1t
| into the limelight to such extent that the
Remington Arms company purchased the
right to manufacture, paying outright in
cash a lump sum of 5000, with under
standing to the effect that for each gun
manufactured and sold, a royalty of 80
cents should be paid. Peterson was to have
three-fourths of the cash payment of 5000,
also three-fourths of the coming royalties.
Just Like an Inventor.
Bennett, with the proverbal poor luck Of
| the inventor, died just before the close Of
the deal with the Remington Arms COM
pany, but Peterson paid the $500, or one
fourth to Mrs. Bennett.
About that time there arose most ard
ent love affair, It is related. between Peder-
son and the Widow Bennett But, although
1.-THE pump-guns we're selling rapidly, there
came to the widow so it is alleged. no
royalties, neither was there any fraction
thereof. The love affair waned. Mrs. Ben
nett married another man. Peterson also
married.
Then came the suit, Mrs. Bennett-Stuart
being plaintiff, in which she sought to en-
force the payment of one-fourth of all the
roy alties paid to Peterson.
The result was a complete victory for
the woman in Judge j. A. Howelrs court
at Ogden. In rendering his decision Judge
Howell Said:
1T is ordered, therefore, that in accord
ance with the prayer of the plaintiff s
} complaint, the defendant be required to ac-
count to her for all royalties received from
the Remington Arms company on account
of the sale of what is known as the
| Remington pump gum"
! There is little romance connected with
} the case, it appearing in court that the
! plaintiff and defendant we're desperately
in love with each other at one time, and
} that because OF this love there had beer
l considerable business laxity exhibited or
: the part Of the two, and that it was moi
1 an easy matter to determine just what was
3 the contract between plaintiffs former
husband and the defendant and between
t the two parties to the action.
a Findings of the Court.
The court in making a summary of thi!
$ phase of the question, says in part:
1T is finally ingenously argued by coun
sci that defendant should not be held to hi.
agreement because 1t was simply the ex
! travagant promise of a lover to his sweet
heart, and not in any sense a business ar
rangement. 1t appears from the numerous
and lengthy epistles introduced In evidenc,
as HdNnuB passed. between the parties u
this suit that after Benefits death anC
prior to plaintiffs remarriage to her pres
: ent husband. violent love- apparent,
, mutually reciprocated, took possession o
!. both plaintiff and defendant. No matter
!. with what seriousness the philosophe
: might ponder over the snuous. uneven ant
:, unhappy course of this love story, or n,
= matter with what delight the psychologist
! might seek to unravel the tangled strains
. of II. nor how 1t could be woven by tn
a novelist into a romance, l am, of course
only concerned with its legal phases
= Fortunately the courts are not often callet
- upon to enforce the promises which ar
> said to be made between lovers The fon,
= SWANS hyperbolical desire to lay tn
+, wealth of the world at his loved ones fee
- is meant for the poet and the novelist no
= the prosaic Judge Occasionally, however
:, unwillingly the courts are nevertheless
a compelled to draw the line between wha
N is simply loves fantasy and cold, har
n business between people in love, and fortu
ls nately the task is not difficult, because Il
W the cruclble of common sense Il is cas-
n TO separate them. If, for instance, tn
n iovesick youth, during a spasm or derium
n promises the equally lovesick maiden tina
II he will give her the silvery moon for
brooch to embellish her lily white throa
IL or the lady fair. in monument of ecstasy
swears she will pluck from the sky
IL shining diamond to bedazzle her lover
manly hand or shirt bosom. a court q
,e equity would not seek to enforce eithe
lie promise nor would a court OF law Civ
ir damages for the failure to perform either
But il a lover or a beloved happen to ow
n some property, or other valuable righ
re and the other promises TO give a sum q
II money in exchange for it, then that pro-
Use can be enforced in a court of iustc,
NJ in the absence OF fraud or duress (whic
st love, in and Of itself cannot be legally cor
ID sldered), and II matters not that i'm maxim
r the bargain the lover or beloved agrees
o. give a great deal more because the tran.
ID action was looked at through the ewes G
re love. or that 1t was not looked at at al
TX the parties being, as tradition has 4
N blinded by love.
~ Admits the Love Phase,
So here II may be- that II the defendar
y had not been in love with the plaintiff, n
3 would have agreed to treat her exactly a
he would have treated her husband ha
- he lived tqueer promise that and give he
the same amount Of money and royaltle
~ had he not been in love with her, but sh
had an interest in her deceased husband
a. contract. and TO benefit himself by maxim
the contract with the Remington Arms ca