Classic Mode

Music Trade Review

Issue: 1886 Vol. 9 N. 12

Page 4 Text:

190
Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org,
-- digitized with support from namm.org
THE arcade-museum.com
MUSIC TRADE REVIEW.
BRATTLEBOBO, VT., Jan. 14, 1886.
Music TRADE REVIEW, 22 East Seventeenth street,
New York.
GENTLEMEN : The past year has been a favorable
one in many ways, and we trust that the year to come
may be one that will be satisfactory to the business
world all round.
Very truly,
ESTEY ORGAN COMPANY.
ALBANY, N. Y., Jan. 14, 1886.
THE MUSIC TRADE REVIEW, 22 East Seventeenth St.,
New York City.
DEAR SIRS: Business with us, during the few months
since our recovery from the fire of July 12, has kept
us working night and day, and then we were not able
to fill all our orders. We have now commenced in-
creasing our force in anticipation of doing a good
business this year. Havo just issued our new cata-
logue, one of which we mail you.
Respectfully yours,
BOABDMAN & GRAY.
ERIE, PA., Jan. 15, 1886.
Mr. J E F F . DAVIS BTLL:
SIR : Replying to your inquiry of 13th inst., will say
the Burdett Organ Co.'s great success with the new
styled " Oriental" Burdetts, introduced in 1885, made
'85 compare favorably for them, in its trade results,
with '84; thereby demonstrating the fact that organ
novelties, judiciously advertised, will command cus-
tom, let the times be dull or lively.
Yours truly,
C. C. CONVERSE, Secretary,
BURDETT OKOAN CO.
CHICAGO, Jan. 18.
T H E MUSIC TRADE REVIEW :
GENTLEMEN : In answer to your postal of Januaiy
13, will say that our fall trade was fair, December
very dull, but the outlook at present very encourag-
ing.
Yours truly,
AUGUSTUS NEWKLL &• Co.
MONTPELIEK, VT., Jan. 14.
J E F F . DAVIS BILL, ESQ. :
DEAR SIR : The condition of our business January
1. '36, was more satisfactory than January 1, '85. We
have more orders, less stock on hand, collections
easy, and apparently a much better feeling among
our customers than a year ago. Prices, though low,
and very little margin yet, have a firmer tone than
ast year, and there is every appearance that there
will be an increased consumption of manufactures
which enter into the comforts and conveniences of
life during the coming year.
Yours truly,
SABIN MACHINE COMPANY.
NEW BRITAIN, CONN., Jan. 16.
JEFF DAVIS BILL, ESQ. :
DEAR SIR : On January 1 we were out of the traces,
businesswise, on account of rebuilding. We think
we are safe at the present outlook on the plans we
are perfecting in adding room to our factory, increas-
ing our tools and machinery to more rapidly produce
goods in our line, in which we have had a good share
of patronage. F. J. Brand is in the West, starting
13th for a two months' trip. We have never seen a
chance to let up for want of orders, and don't expect
to the coming year.
Yours truly,
BRAND MFO. CO., J. H. BALDWIN, Sec.
CHESTERTON, IND., Jan. 21, 188(1.
MESSRS. WELLES & BILL :
GENTLEMEN: Concerning our business will say,
that during 1885 we had a splendid business; it by
far surpassed previous years, and we are glad to say
that this year will be better yet, as we have more
orders than we possibly can fill, and more we get.
Ever since last summer we have run our factory to 10
at nights.
Respectfully,
0. O. HILLSTROM & Co.
GUILTY!
AN EXTRAORDINARY VERDICT.
THE MECHANICAL ORGUINETTE CO. GAIN
EVERY POINT FOR WHICH THEY SUED,
The important litigation in which the Mechanical
Orguinette Co. has been engaged,to recover the patents
on which its business was organized, and of which the
trade has received some vague idea, has finally been
decided in favor of the company. The charge sub-
stantiated by the findings of the Court was, that
Walter F. Abbot, John C. Haynes, and Charles H.
Ditson, while trustees of that company, conspired to
obtain all the patents which the Mechanical Orguin-
ette Co. owned. In furtherance of that conspiracy
Abbot proposed to certain officers of the company,
who were not aware of the purpose of the conspir-
ators, that he would purchase a certain patent. The
officers, innocent of such purpose, agreed to convey
to Abbot this single patent. Haynes' and Ditson's
virtuous assurances prevailed upon such innocent
trustees to agree to such proposition. A meeting was
convened, ostensibly to effect Abbot's proposition,
and such meeting was held. The secretary of the
Mechanical Orguinette Co. was sick in bed, and the
meeting was held in his sick room. At that meeting
one of the conspirators offered a resolution, that the
company sell to Abbot the patent which he had pro-
posed to buy. The resignation of the defendant,
Abbot, as trustee of the company, was there offered
and accepted. By the procurement of Haynes, Dit-
son, and Abbot, a resolution was passed authorizing
the conveyance to Abbot of the one patent which he
had proposed to buy. At the close of the meeting,
minutes prepared by one of the conspirators pretend-
ing to truthfully represent the transactions of such
meeting were presented to the secretary, as he lay
sick in bed; which minutes cunningly provided for
the sale to Abbot "of certain patents and rights under
patents owned by the company," and appointed a
committee to complete such sale of patents, of which
committee two of the conspirators constituted a
majority. The secretary was fraudulently induced
to sign such pretended minutes as a correct record of
the proceedings of the meeting. Under cover of such
false resolution, Abbot obtained from the proper
officers of the company conveyances of all the
patents owned by the Mechanical Orguinette Co.,
instead of the single patent which Abbot had proposed
to buy, and certain stock of the company which
Abbot had proposed as purchase price of the single
patent, and which was the pretended consideration
for all the patents conveyed, was furnished by Abbot's
co-conspirators—Haynes and Ditson. Abbot there-
after conveyed the patents, which were thus fraudul-
ently obtained, to Marshall P. Stafford, who in all the
litigation against the Mechanical Orguinette Co., in-
spired by Mr. Andrew H. Hammond, has acted as
counsel for Hammond, but Stafford never paid any-
thing for such patents, and had no better right to
them than Abbot or any of the conspirators. Some
question was made on the trial because Stafford had
taken the patents in consideration of his promise to
render to Abbot certain services as his lawyer, but
the Court decided that Stafford had not rendered any
service prior to notice of the company's claim to own
the patents, and that Stafford had no right whatever
to any of the patents. Haynes and Ditson declared
that the only patent intended to be sold to Abbot was
the one patent which he had proposed to buy, and if
he had got any other patent he had done so by fraud
upon them as well as the company, and they did not
appear to defend when the case came to trial.
The Court said that if Haynes and Ditson had
defended they might have shown their innocence,
but in their absence they must be held to be prima
facie guilty with Abbot. The Court decided that the
conveyances to Abbot were obtained by " fraud, con-
spiracy, and abuse of trust, and were corrupt, fraud-
ulent, and void;" that Stafford was not a purchaser in
good faith or for value of any of the patents, and had
no right whatever to any of them, that all the rights
and claims of Haynes, Ditson, Abbot, and Stafford
should be cancelled, anulled, and set aside; and that
Abbot and Stafford execute, acknowledge, and deliver
to the Mechanical Orguinette Co. full, complete, and
absolute assignment of all the patents described,
that the defendants should be forever enjoined from
doing anything whatever under or by virtue of any of
these patents; that the company recover from
the conspirators all damages suffered by their fraud,
conspiracy, and abuse of trust; and that the plaintiffs
recover its costs in the action.
The following is the text of the opinion of the
Court, which is the most concise and clear document
we ever perused.
SUPREME COURT.
THE MECHANICAL ORGUINETTE CO.,
1)8.
JOHN C. HAYNES, et a I.
SPECIAL TERM, PART I.
January,1885.
HERBERT T. KETCHAM,
For Plaintiff.
STAFFORD, (JBAFF&ROMAN,
For Defendants.
MARSHALL P. STAFFORD,
For Defendant Abbot.
ELIHU ROOT,
For Defendants Abbot and Stafford.
BARKETT, J.
A careful perusal of the evidence, in connection
with the briefs of counsel, has only served to deepen
the impression which I nad upon the trial as to the
charge of fraud against Abbot. This charge is fully
substantiated, and I can see no possible answer to the
accumulation of facts which the plaintiff has placed
before the court. The verdict is not so clear as to
the charges against Haynes and Ditson, of connivance
with Abbot; and it may well be that if they had de-
fended, they might have been able to substantiate
the averments of their answers. If they had done so
Abbot's guilt would only have been varied in form.
The conspiracy, strictly speaking, would -have been
disproved, and he alone would have been guilty of the
fraud set up by the plaintiff. Whether that state of
things would have entitled Abbot to a dismissal of
the present complaint, need not be discussed, as upon
the whole and in view of all the circumstances, I feel
bound to hold that Haynes and Ditson connived with
him, and in that sense are to be treated as co-con-
spirators. Certainly a prima facie case was made
out against them, sufficient to call for their explana-
tion. They have afforded none. They neither de-
fended nor appeared as witnesses. Even if the case
rested upon a conveyance of the alternate reed
patent, and of that alone, their conduct as trusteos
was reprehensible. There is no doubt that even as to
this separate transaction, Abbot was guilty of fraud,
and Haynes and Ditson, indeed, all concerned, were
equally responsible. The agreement to sell this
patent to Abbot was made while he was a trustee of
the company, and he resigned his trusteeship in order
to free himself from the legal prohibition against a
trustee thus dealing with corporate property The
resignation was accepted and the authority to pur-
chase given at the same board meeting. This was
clearly a fraud upon the corporation, and Haynes
and Ditson were privy to it. They not only voted for
the sale, under the circumstances involving a breach
of trust, but they furnished Abbot with the ten
shares of the plaintiffs stock, which was the sole
consideration for the transfer.
When we consider Haynes' and Ditson's partner-
ship relations with Abbot, also the fact that one of
them prepared the fraudulent minutes of the board
meeting and subsequently signed the conveyances to
Abbot, together with many other circumstances,
slight of themselves, but significant in their relations
to the other facts, and convincing when treated as a
whole, it is impossible to resist the conclusion, in the
absence of an explanation from these parties, that
they connived at Abbot's misconduct throughout.
This conclusion, so far as Abbot is concerned, is
further borne out by his letters, which were read in
evidence. It may be that these letters would have
been incompetent to bind Haynes and Ditson—that
is, incompetent in the first instance to establish a
conspiracy as against them.
They are competent, however, as againt Abbot,
not only to prove his fraudulent plans and purposes,
but to establish the conspiracy. And it does not lie
in his mouth to oomplaiii that the evidence of his
conspiracy with the other parties, sufficient as against
him, is insufficient as against them. Upon the whole,
I feel constrained to find the conspiracy as matter of
fact, proved on the merits, (that is, after hearing
both sides) as against Abbot, and proved prima facie
as against Haynes and Ditson.
f

Page 5 Text:

Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org,
-- digitized with support from namm.org
THE arcade-museum.com
MUSIC TRADE REVIEW.
The remaining question is as to Mr. Stafford. He
took the patents from Abbot without knowledge of
the fraud, but he is in no just sense a bonafide pur-
chaser. He paid nothing for them, and he cannot
hold them' for legal services rendered, It is true that
the consideration for the assignment to him was not
only services rendered, but to be rendered. As to
the latter, however, he had notice of the plaintiff's
claim of ownership before any substantial service was
rendered upon the faith of the assigned patents. It
was not necessary that he should have had notice of
the plaintiffs present charges. It was sufficient that,
before rendering substantial services upon the faith
of the assigned patents, he knew that the plaintiff
in an important instrument, executed subsequently
to the date when Abbot claimed to have acquired
from it these very patents, recited and claimed its
ownership. This put him upon inquiry. He could
have then demanded from his client money or other
security for the proposed services. If he had gone
to the plaintiff and asked the then president what the
recitals in question meant, he would undoubtedly
have learned that Abbot's claim of an earlier transfer
was the fraud which we have found it to be. As it
was, he certainly had notice that something was
wrong, and that the plaintiff, notwithstanding any
formal assignment to Abbot, claimed the continued
ownership of the patents. Yet he proceeded lo render
services to Abbot, with the knowledge that payment
depended upon the issue of these conflicting claims.
Thus he took the risk of Abbot's title proving good,
and the plaintiff's claim proving bad. The point that
Mr. Stafford should have set up his rights affirma-
tively in his answer is also well taken. Equity will
not permit a guarded denial, in the precise terms of
an unnecessary averment, to take place of a full and
adequate disclosure of the facts upon which a party
claims to be a bona fide purchaser for value and
without notice.
There must be judgment for the plaintiff as prayed
for, with costs as against all the defendants, except
Stafford.
factory, up to the time when he was asked what prop*
erty his sister gave him in exchange for his house
and lot, when he flatly declined to answer. He said
he was willing to make a statement concerning the
matter, but his testimony on the point was what was
desired, and Judge Peck held that the question was
a proper one and must be answered. The plaintiff
offered to show that some of Mr. Graves musical
instruments were involved in the transaction. Mr.
Page's lawyer, Mr. Watson, advised and directed him
to answer, but his contumacy prevailed, even after
nearly an hour's deliberation on the subject. As he
declared he would not answer, the Court denied the
petition, and remanded Mr. Page back to jail. In an
opinion on a similar case, Judge Earl of the Court of
Appeals writes : " The sole object of the statute was
the discharge of honest debtors who made an honest
and full surrender of all their property for their
creditors. It was not intended to benefit debtors
who had disposed of their property for the purpose of
defrauding the very creditors at whose suits they
were imprisoned." Judge Earl says that in some
cases the enforcement of the statute may result in
unlimited imprisonment.
To secure his release now, Mr. Page must make a
new petition to the Court, and at the hearing must
submit to the plaintiff's cross-examination.—Batavia
Daily News.
DON'T PAY ANY MORE LICENSE FEES.
ANY of the Southern and Western cities have
been in the habit of exacting licences from
the Commercial Travelers. We have always
contended that such a law was wrong, and have urged
the travelers not to pay the tax, and have it settled.
The Supreme Court has just decided that the
money thus raised is an unjust tax upon commerce,
and that such laws and ordinances are unconstitu-
tional.
Many of these taxes have been collected from
the commercial travelers by threats of imprisonment
unless they were paid, and the question arises in our
THE PETITION DENIED.
mind if these cities and towns are not compelled to
pay back the money they have extorted from the
people. Why can't the Traveling Men's Association
MR. PAGE SENT ISAOK TO JAIL.—EXTRACTS FROM THE
bring a collective suit for the drummers against these
LAW IN HIS CASE.
cities and towns, and thus test the case? There have
been thousands of dollars thus paid for these unjust
licenses. The following are the States and towns as
ESTEEDAY afternoon, at the continuation of
the hearing of the matter of the petition of far as we have been able to tabulate, which have im-
Eliphas B. Page for his release from jail, be- posed a " Drummer's Tax."
Alabama, $15.50 per year; $10 to State, $5 to county,
fore Judge Peck, Mr.'Page declined to answer certain
and 50 cents to officer issuing licsnse.
questions and his petition was denied.
Arizona, $200 a year.
As the News has heretofore stated, Mr. Page is in-
Beaufort, S. C, $10 per week.
carcerated on a body execution. In November, 1884,
Bennettsville, S. C, $1 per visit.
a suit of W. F. Graves, of Castile, against him was
Batesburg, S. C, 75 cents per day.
tried, the issue being not alone the amount of the
Charleston, S. C, $10 per month.
defendant's indebtedness to the plaintiff, but to de
Cumberland, Md., $1 per day.
termine the question whether Mr. Page had converted
Delaware, $25 per year; fees 50 cents. Penalty,
to his own use any of Mr. Grave's property. The
$200 fine and six months to five years, option of the
jury rendered a judgment against Mr. Page of
$986.83 and found that he had converted some of the court.
Deadwood, Dak. Ter., $5 per week.
plaintiff's property. Although the action was a civil
Darlington, S. C, $1.
one, the verdict of the jury saying that the defendant
East St. Louis, $2 per day.
was guilty of conversion, put him in reach of a body
Elkton, Md., per cent, on stock carried.
execution. After the trial efforts were made to arrive
Florida, $25 per year. Year begins October 1st,
at a settlement, but they were not successful, and on
September 8 last Mr. Page was arrested upon a body and tax paid after that date is at a pro rata for the
execution and lodged in jail. A man who is im- months remaining.
Helena, $15 extra for city; Butte City, $10 extra
prisoned upon such a commitmant must remain in
jail for a period of three months, if he is unable to for city; Missoula, $5 extra for city, and all other
secure bail, but at the expiration of thattime he may towns in the Territory, from $10 to $15 per quarter.
Hartwell, Ga., $5 per trip; seldom enforced.
be taken before the court on a petition for his release,
Johnston, S. C, 50 cents per day.
providing he has previously conformed to the law.
The plaintiff must be given fourteen days' notice of
Lewiston, Idaho, $5 per trip.
the defendant's petition.
Montana, $100 per year for each county.
Memphis, $10 per week, $25 per month, license to
Mr. Page finally got his petition under way.
Accompanying it was his affidavit, which included run three months.
Mobile, Ala., $3 per day; $7 per week, strictly en-
the following: " I have not at any time, or in any
manner whatsoever, disposed of or made over any forced.
Natchez, Miss., $2.50 per day—half to the spotter.
part of my property * * for the future benefit of
New Orleans, La., $50 per year, seldom enforced.
myself or my family, or disposed of or made over any
Newport, Ky., $1 a month.
part of my property with intent to injure or defraud
any of my creditors." Upon the defendant's affidavit
North Carolina, $100 per year. $250 per year for
to that effect, the plaintiff is given the right to cross- sewing machine and liquor salesmen. $250 penalty.
examination. The plaintiff claims, among other
Nevada, $200 a year for liquor salesmen; cigars
things, that Mr. Page converted musical instruments and tobacco, $150; boots and shoes, $175: other
belonging to him (the plaintiff) for village lots, and lines, $100.
that he traded the lots for a house and lot on Bank
Orangeburg, S. C, $2 per day.
street, which he subsequently deeded to his sister.
Savannah, Ga., $10 per week ; 10 per cent, off for
Mr. Page's examination yesterday proceeded unsatis- cash.
Y
M
St. Matthews, S. C, $1 per day, $3 per year.
San Francisco, Oal., $25 per quarter.
Texas, $35 per year.
Tucson, Arizona, $50 per quarter.
Tombstone, Arizona, $10 per day.
Virginia, $75 per year. $250 penalty.
Wilmington, N. C, $3 per day. Not enforced if
victim holds a State License.
Washington, D. C, $200 per year.
Walhalla, S. C, $1 per day, $3 per year.
KIND WORDS.
PHILADELPHIA, PA., Jan. 20.
WELLES & BILL :
GENTLEMEN : Enclosed please find my check for
advertising for the year 1886, in your valuable paper,
and wishing the new firm great success, I remain,
Yours respectfully,
JOHN PIKE.
CINCINNATI, Jan. 19.
WELLES & BILL ;
Judging from the size of your number of the Mu-
sic TRADE EEVIEW received this morning, there will
not be paper enough left in Gotham for another issue,
so please send me another copy. It is a most cred-
itable display of enterprise and push. By the way,
I wish you would change that "Trade Chat" head-
ing, for some of us know that one lyre is enough in
one department.
Business is D
, yes, too dull to mention, and
yet " we rent a piano once in a while."
Yours truly,
H. L. BENHAM,
With H. WURLTTZER &, BRO.
NEW ORLEANS, Jan. 20, 1886.
MESSRS. WELLES & BILL, 22 East 17th street:
GENTLEMEN :—I think the Exposition will close
for want of attendance. Business dull yet, on ac-
count of bad weather. Will be glad to hear from you
occasionally. All send regards and will be glad to
see you. Your paper splendid and like it much
better than anything I have seen. With very best
wishes.
Remain your friend.
JUNIUS HABT.
TESTIMONIALS TO THE SWICK PIANO.
TALCOTT MUSIC CO., GENEVA, O., Aug. 17, 1885.
MESSRS. SWICK & Co.:
The pianos of your make are giving good satisfac-
tion and we are much pleased with them. The
prospects of our doing a large business with the
popular concert grand upright is most flattering,
as they are the right instruments in the right place.
Truly yours,
CHARLES TALOOTT.
NEW BBBMEN, O., Aug. 20, 1885.
MESSRS. SWICK & Co., New York:
GENTS : The piano arrived all in good order, and
beyond doubt is the finest toned and best finished in-
strument I have handled for the price. I can safely
recommend your pianos to all.
Respectfully,
ED. PuBPtrs.
PHILADELPHIA, Sep. 15, 1885.
MESSBS. SWICK & Co.:
DEAR SIBS : Yours of the 14th inst. came duly to
hand asking our opinion of your upright No. B. I
think it a fair piano for the money.
Yours truly,
WM, G. FISHER,
by Eldorus Hurff.
PATERSON, Aug. 15, 1885.
MESSRS SWICK & Co.:
GENTS : Allow me to express my admiration for
your beautiful pianos. They are perfect in tone,
quality, and workmanship, and are destined to create
a sensation in the musical circles.
Yours very truly,
JAS. NEWBY, J E .

Download Page 4: PDF File | Image

Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).

Pro Tip: You can flip pages on the issue easily by using the left and right arrow keys on your keyboard.