The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1912-02-15
DEFENSE HAS AN INNING
IN BATHTUB TRUST TRIAL
Court Excludes Important Docu-
ments Which Prosecution
Tries To Get On Record

While Judge Angel ruled in favor
Of the prosecution, Wednesday. allow.
ing the introduction OF testimony as 10
events following the meeting OF May
6, IN the bathtub trust trial, he sided
with the defense, Thursday morning
on precisely the same question.
Soon after the opening of court, the
government attempted TO introduce a
letter and contract sent by one OF the
defendant manufacturers to Charles
S. Hirschfield, half owner or the
Central Plumbers Supply Co., OF New
York. The contract was the one
drawn up by the manufacturers be
tween themselves and the plumbing
Jobbers. fixing prices and stipulating
that the jobbers could not purchase
the goods OF the manufacturers unless
they agreed to accept the terms Oh
the contract. The letter was O line OF
instruction for Mr.. Hirschfield In con-
nection with the contract and was
supposed to have been sent to him
by one of the defendants at the die
tation of Edwin L. Wayman, commits
sioner for the so-called trust. Mr.
Hirschfield testified, without objection
from the defense, that he bought ar
ticles from the manufacturers at vari'
Gus prices prior to June 1, 1910, but
when the new contract and letter
were mentioned by the prosecution,
the defendants lawyers chorused o
protest
For over two hours the two sides
argued the matter, the government
contending that the introduction OF
the letter and contract was regular,
iI view OF the ruling OF the court,
"Wednesday. and that the documents
were needed in the court records 70
help build up the case against the de-
PENDANTS.
The defense claimed that there
could be no purpose in admitting The
documents; that the license agree.
ment signed by the defendants on
May 6, 1910 showed what they plan.
ned 10 do, and that nothing could BE-
gained by introducing matter which
the agreement itself proved. BY the
agreement, the defense argued, The de-
PENDANTS agreed to use certain pat
ent for the betterment OF their trade.
When argument after argument had
Leen advanced pro and con. the prose
cution suggested that there was notn-
ing prejudicial to the defense IN the
introduction OF the letter and con-
tract, that the sole purpose OF the pro-
posed admission was to show the pur-
pose OF the defendants in bringing
about their agreement.
Then, II there is nothing prejudi-
cial about IL, there can be no object In
Offering 1t as evidence" suggested MI.
Bodman, for the defense.
That's the way look at IL, too"
said the court, "and shall exclude
the matter. think the agreement
shows what the defendants did"
The prosecution was keenly disap-
.Iointed over the ruling. and MIR.
Grosvenor undertook TO continue the
argunent-ffc- emerged that the de-
PENDANTS license agreement was sim
ply a cloak to cover up the real
cause of their getting together. He
represented that they didn't change
their factories in connection with the
patent they say they purchased. Fur
tnermore, they afterward told the job
bers that they couldn't get the de-
PENDANTS goods unless they agreed to
the terms in the contract between
the jobbers and manufacturers, Mr..
Grostenor further pointed out
Under the ruling of the court, yes
terdsy, I think the evidence ought 20
be admitted" said Mr.. Grosvenor in
conclusion.
Court adjourned for lunch at the
end OF Mr.. Grosvenor's argument.