New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-03-12
Big Stores Plea for
Injunction Denied by
Justice COhalan.
ADAMS ARTICLE
ATTACKS METHODS
Decision Involves Broad
Principle of Censorship
of Journalism.

By a decision OF Justice Daniel +.
Cohalan. handed down yesterday in
Special Term, Part |, OF the Supreme
Court, the sole impediment TO the ex-
posure Of the Greenhut Company's
methods Of merchandising advertised to
be published in The Tribune last
month was removed. The Tribune had
announced on February an article by
Samuel Hopkins Adams dealing with
what purported TO be special sale OF
the stock Of the defunct firm A. ID.
Matthews Sons, Inc, by the Greenhut
Company. That article, prepared Tor
Sunday, February 6, has not yet been
published. Without notice TO The Trio-
une. Greenhut's obtained a temporary
Injunction from Justice Newburger.
Application was then made for (per-
manent) injunction. Justice Cohalsn's
decision denies this injunction. His de-
cision runs as follows.
Motion Dcndente lite denied. 1t
seems 70 be the rule that an injunction
will not issue to restrain an individual
or a newspaper from publishing libel
where no conspiracy, no intimidation
and act Of coercion has been shown. In
any event, the important questions
raised herein should be decided upon
the trial Of the action"
This, in its result, bears out the con-
tention Of the counsel for The Tribune.
The Greenhut store has long been
the object of suspicion, Investigation
and unfavorable comment by The Trib-
une Bureau Of Investigations. More
than a year ago its advertising wa
rejected, when offered TO this paper
on the ground that the stores reputa-
ton in the matter Of methods OF adver-
tising and merchandising was not sucn
as 10 qualify 1t for representation IN
The Tribune's columns, and under The
Tribune's guarantee. Upon the claim
of the stores advertising manager that
objectionable methods had been fore
sworn. The Tribune Bureau OF lnvesti
cations maintained a quiet inspection OF
tho concern. The result not only con-
nrmed its bad repute, but developed
such a mass of proof that in March
1918. an article describing the fake
practices of the J. B. Greenhut Com
pany was published. Shortly after
this company went into bankruptcy and
its stock in trade was conveyed TO the
Greenhut Co., Inc, the plaintiff in ths
injunction suit. Although not so speci
fed in the transfer papers. the methods
OF trade were also apparently handed
over 10 the new concern.
Last January the Greenhut store an
nounced exclusively a great special sale
Of the stock OF the bankrupt A. d.
Matthews Sons, Inc, of Brooklyn.
Purchasers from The Tribune Bureau
Of Investigations attended this sale day
after day, buying in various depart
ments a varied and curious assortment
OF merchandise. The character Of these
goods and the nature Of the article
preparing By Mr.. Adams and announced
for publication must have been vivid
in the minds OF the Greenhut Company,
since, on their complaint, il was or
dered that this paper De enJoined and
restrained rom publishing on the fol-
lowing Sunday or any other date "the
article written by Samuel Hopkins
Adams mentioned in the complaint
herein. or any other article or written
matter charging the plaintiff with false
or fraudulent advertising, or the false
or fraudulent sale Of merchandise or
use of labels, or Of the false or fraudu-
lent conduct of sale of merchandise
formerly belonging TO A. d. Matthews
Sons, Inc, or containing allegations al
leging any dishonesty or fraudulent
Continued on page IS, column