The Detroit times., 1913-02-13
ARGUMENTS ON
! in BATHTUB
TRUST CASES
Fate Will Likely Be in Jury's
Hands Friday
Afternoon
DEFENSE JOLTED HARD
BY COURTS RULING
Judge Refuses to Admit Testi-
mOny rs to Attorneys o. h.
of License Scheme


trust case shortly before the noon re-
cess, Thursday, the defense finishing
up with its witnesses and the govern
in rebutal 70 offer. The arguments in
!, the case were started Thursday after
J noon. It is expected that the case
will be given 10 the jury Friday after
! moon al the latest
Following the closing OF the proof.
the defense made motion for the
dismissal OF the indictment against all
1.-The defendants or against the indiyid-
Iuals and firms left of in the former
trial, but who refused 10 accept the
courts ruling. The motion as TO all
the defendants was denied. and de-
cision reserved respecting the partic-
ular defendants, as In the case OF the
former motion made at the close OF
the governments case.
The defense lost an important de-
cision, Thursday morning, when IL a..
tempted To introduce the testimony OF
Walter Lyon, former lieutenant-gov-
ernor of Pennsylvania, respecting the
advice he had given 10 the defendants
on the legality OF the agreement.
Judge Sessions made his ruling with
out calling upon the counsel for the
government for argument, basing II
upon a decision which held that the
/ advice OF counsel as 10 the legality
OF contract could not be introduced.
! that the statute was the only evidence
iof its legality.
! The defense made a hard fight on
! this point, stating that il desired TO
establish that the defendants were not
bound by any agreement except upon
approval or counsel, and that il that
approval was not finally given until
! May 6, the case OF the government
would fail. as no conspiracy prior TO
the overt act of April Ia could be
shown. Following the ruling OF the
court on the testimony OF Gov. Lyon
/ the defense introduced Herbert W.
! Noble, a New York attorney. who also
(, advised the defendants with respect
! 10 the agreement, and the same objec
ton was made by the government and
Exception taken to a similar ruling OF
the court by the defense
I. The most interesting witness Thurs
day morning was John F. Wolff, OF the
l.. WOLF Manufacturing Co., Chicago,
who described infinitely the process OF
manufacturing enameled ware and the
necessity OF using the Arrott dredge.
by the defense in the bathtub trust
trial, Wednesday afternoon, was Karl
Legner. accountant for the Standard
Sanitary manufacturing Co., OF Pitts
= burgh, and much OF the afternoon ses-
! sion was taken up with his testimony
ton the cost OF enameled ironware be-
fore and after the introduction OF the
Arrott dredge. He testified that the
lufa in Nha rs Ca.
: 100 bathtubs in 1898 when the Arrott
. dredge was first introduced, Sas sci
: and that 1t rose steadily TO S92 with
! in three years. He also stated that
: the percentage OF defective tubs in
1898, while some tubs were still made
!, by the ole hand method, was IL per
cent, and that II dropped TO CD per
: cent for the last six months OF thar
= year, and TO per cent in 1910. He
testified that the production OF tubs
!, per day per furnace was 26.S, under
! the hand method, and that IL was i'm
mediately increased TO 30.7 tubs pei
day by the introduction OF the AT
!, rott dredge, and TO 48 tubs In 1901
: He stated that In 1910 the average
sale price OF bathtubs was lower thar
the cost OF production under the ole
Mr.. Legner's testimony was intro
duced oyer the objections or the gov
eminent attorneys, and the defense
was plainly elated because It helped
to establish their claim that the Ar
rott dredge, which was the subject
OF the license agreement, is very i'm
portant IN the manufacture OF enam
eled ironware. The government al
leges In It's indictment that the dredge
patent IL unimportant and q mere
subterfuge used for the purpose OF
fixing prices.
Three more jobbers were intro
duced, Wednesday afternoon, all De
troiters. John II. wilkes told the
familiar story OF trade conditions
prior to the license agreement, but
was caught up sharply by District At
torney Webster on HIS statement chat
plumbers were in the habit OF selling
seconds for first-class goods. He was
asked to name a plumber who did
that, and could not do so. Harry +.
Kimball and Edward A. Morris. two
other Detroit jobbers, testified as TO
trade conditions.
Lloyd G. McCrum, OF the McCrum-
Howell Co. one OF the defendants.
testified that the Arrott dredge Is q
necessity In the manufacture OF enam-
elware. and that his concern took a
chance on infringement suits TO use
It. George J Blackham, of the same
company, testified that he used the
dredge on the order OF his employers.
Jesse r. Duryea. OF the Colwell
Lead Co. another defendant. testified
that he signed the license agreement
with q provision which would allow
him TO use the Arrott dredge as he
had been using II before.
Henry ID. Kinney testified that he
went TO Mt. Clemens TO discuss pref
erential discounts before the price
committee at the order OF his en-
, ployers, the HUMPHREYS Manufactur
I. ing Co