Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-05-28
FOR IMPROVEMENT.
CONTINUED from Page one.)
improvements on shoe machinery SUI
marian. Il, fEaf .,f Tho dnfnnlanf

improvements on shoe machinery SUI
perior to that of the defendant.
As outlined by Mr. Choate, the dc'
fence, will be that the patents were
acquired to keep the business of the
defendant up to date in every respect.
OF the IS companies mentioned IN
the governments bill of complaint as
having been acquired for the purpose
of effecting a monopoly, the govern
rnent showed that AZ have ceased to
do business along the lines they Were
formerly engaged in.
The largest of the companies still
doing business is the Thomas G
Plant Co. of Boston, This company.
which was bought out by the United
Shoe Machinery Co, in September
1910 for s6.oo0,0o0, manufactured n
complete line OF shoe machinery. II
is believed that the circumstance sur
rounding the acquisition Of this com
pany may serve as test as TO whether
or not the line of defence outlined by
Mr.. Choate will stand the assaults of
thhS6serament. ShgslIgafs ~
Owing to the fact that District
Judge Arthur L. Brown of Providence.
r. l., who was especially assigned to
the case, with Circuit Judges Putnam
and Dodge, was required to sit in the
district court in Providence, today, the
case was resumed by agreement of
counsel with only two judges on the
bench.
The acquisition of the Morley But
ton Manufacturing Co. of Portsmouth,
N. H, was first taken up. In addi-
ton to making buttons, this company
made enamel eyelets under patent
The United Shoe Machinery Co. was
manufacturing enamel eyelets when it
acquired the eyelet business of the
Portsmouth concern in December, 1901,
having previously acquired the eyelet
business of ]. c. Rhodes & Co. of New
Bedford, and the Enamel Eyelet Co.
and the Boston Fast Color Eyelet Co.
both of Boston. The United Shoe Ma
chinery Co. now controls practically
all the eyelet business of the country.
The contracts and agreements by
which the subsidiary companies were
acquired We're introduced as exhibits
by the government and Nelson w.
Howard, patent attorney in the en-
ployment of the defendant explained
the different machinery acquired BY
certain clauses in these contracts and
agreements the vendors bound them-
selves not to engage in the business
sold TO the defendant during the life
of the patents conveyed to the shoe
machinery company.
Testifying regarding the individuals
whose business was acquired, Howard
said that William j. Young Of Lynn,
manufacturer of heel COMPRISING
machine, sold out his foreign business
in England and Germany to the de-
fcndant in 1902 for $4,000. At the time
OF the purchase the United Co. was
developing heel COMPRISING ma
chine which it was putting out in this
country but not abroad. The reason
for the purchase of this foreign bust
ness, witness said, was that the Ger
man patent laws required the manu-
facture of Youngs machine in Ger
many and Young had no facilities for
complying with the law. while the
United Co. had a factory there,
OF 30 companies acquired during the
first five and one-half years of the ex-
istence Of the United Shoe Machinery
Co., VIM. S. Gregg, special assistant
to the United States attorney general,
showed that 20 had ceased TO do the
business they were engaged in at the
time they were purchased.