New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-12-05
SUED THE TRIBUNE,
GETS SIX CENTS
Continued from paEe


Of the Harris case was the fact tnat
this merchant. whom Mr.. Adams re-
ferred to as dealer in fakes, frauds
and swindles." did not sue The Tribune
upon the remainder of the same artl-
Gle in which Mr.. Adams made that
charge. That remainder, constituting
the greater part Of the article, narrat-
ed instances Of purchases of rugs at
Harris's store. and set forth, in sub
sanitation Of the first part, the re-
spects IN which the quality and value
Of the rugs that Harris mad for sale
we're misrepresented.
Mr. Adams described how a woman
had bought one Of Harris's rugs which
soon began to vanish with the sweep
incs Of her housewives broom. Harris,
the article stated, refused to be inter
ested in the woman's complaint or the
rug sweepings. Then Mr. Adams HIM
self did some shopping at Harris's store
and got a "prayerrug" which was rep
resented as an Oriental Bassora. 1t
was not even a rug, but pOrtieTe or
couch cover. He also bought genuine
Oriental silk rug" Experts said that
celIent specimen of mercerized wood
fibre silk, without thread of genuine
silk in it,
The testimony in the Harris suit &C.
cupied two weeks, and included COM
piete resume of The Tribune's honest
advertising campaign. The jury select
ed to try the case was considered by
counsel on both sides to be an unusu-
ally high class group of men. And the
charge of the court was marked not
only BY it's clearness and by the accu-
racy with which the principles Of libel
it was an excellent specimen of mer-
cerized wood-fbre silk, without
thread of genuine silk in it.
Truth The Tribune's Defence
The Tribune stood firmly in its de-
fence upon the ground that what 1t had
published about Harris was JUSTIFIED
because it was true. Il was enabled to
show that Harris had past bad record
of illegitimate trade. Evidence VAS ad-
duced by Colonel Sackett to prove that
some wears before Harris, in business
in Atlantic City, sold his stock in con-
temptation of bankruptcy and to de-
fraud his creditors; that he fled the i'm
mediate jurisdiction Of the Federal
court in New Jersey 20 escape his cred
itors' action, and disobeyed the man
date of the court that he make restitu-
tion TO them.
This and other evidence concerning
Harris's later bankruptcy proceedings
i'm New York, in which the same Jer-
sey creditors appeared against the
merchant, was given in the face Of
vehement objections Of Harris's
counsel, Abraham II. Sarasohn.
The Tribune also was vindicated
10 a considerable extent by Harrls's
own admissions on his examination
before trial that no one in his Fifth
Avenue rug shop had an expert knowl-
edge Of rugs. His own knowledge Of
the difference between a handmade
rug and machine-made rug was
based. he said, on intuition
The Tribune's counsel, Colonel
Sackett and Harold l.. Cross, Of the
same firm Of attorneys, produced a
wealth OF evidence 10 justify The
Tribune's charge that Harris's shop
was "pitfsll Of fakes, frauds and
swindles."
The Tribune had expert testimony
10 prove the misrepresentation al
legged. 1t also showed that the Adams
article about Harris and his prayer
rug" and other would-be genuines was
printed i'm good faith, without malice,
10 promote the public welfare by
warning against such an establishment
as Harris conducted.
Experts Prove Misrepresentation
The Tribune maintained that it was
aiding reputable merchants, especially
those on Fifth Avenue, 10 stamp out
such Legitimate and deceptive trade.
The woman whom Mr.. Adams men
toned as the purchaser Of the rug that
WAS sold to her as perfect, but was ad-
mitted even by Harris's witnesses to
be second" substantiated that part
Of The Tribune's article. And Mr..
Adams himself described his own deal
ings with Harris, which led him to
charge that Harris dealt IN fakes,
frauds and swindles.'
One Of the rugs Mr.. Adams bought
for S24.5O. he testified. was represented
TO be A very fine Oriental rug, an
Egyptian prayer rug. "a rare specimen,
for which SIS would be cheap. An
other smaller one WAS represented Mr..
Adams said, as genuine Oriental pure
silk rug, and bargain at $50. George
II. Toulson, the rug buyer OF r. H..
Macy e. Co.; Albert A. stephens, Of
THE Dry Goods Economist and
Charles +. Seligman, dealer and ap-
praiser Of Oriental rugs, unanimously
declared that the so-called prayer
rug" was not even rug and was not
worth $l5 and that the smaller rug
was not what IL was represented TO be
in quality, material or value.
Harris's own witnesses admitted the
prayer rug" was made in France and
was worth about $25 Two Of them in
sisted it was a prayer rug" because il
had prayer design, and was Oriental
because IL had an Oriental design.
Another Of the plaintiffs witnesses
frankly admitted that the So-ealled
Tsilk rug was not silk Al all. but was
made of wood fibre. which he did not
consider an imposition upon pur-
chaser who thought be was buying a
genuine silk rug because II would
wear better
The testimony offered by Harris and