Big Slander Damages

The case of B. B. Morgan VS. Fred C. Andrews drags its weary way in the circuit court, having been on for the past few days. The case is the old case of Morgan vs. Glover and Bowling, which was tried at Detroit under a new guise and a brief sketch of the case may be interesting. The Ypsilanti Dress Stay C, of which Mr. Glover is president and principal stockholder, is one of the largest manufacturing concerns in the state in point of value of product. The sales in one year have frequently approached $300,000. In the different processes of making the stays about 200 girls are eraployed by pieee work, each girl earningr from $4 to $12 per week according to her skill and speed. Mr. Morgan thought that he could make a machine which would do the work of most of these girls and after considerable negotiation wlth Mr. Glover a contract was made whereby Mr. Morgan was given an opportunity to experiment on such a machine and if at the end of one year and a half he produced a machine which did the work satisfactorily he was to receive $2,000 in cash and royalties which would make the total $20,000. He also received $1,200 in the commencement. Mr. Morgan set up his machine in the dress stay factory, a room being partitioned off for him, and commenced to experiment. At the end of a year and one-half the machine was not satisfactory to Mr. Glover and he extended the time for about six months, but at the end of that time the work turned out by the machine not being satisfactory the machine was rejected. Mr. Morgan brought suit against Mr. Glover and Mr. Bowling, who was originally connected with Mr. Glover in the business to force them to accept the machine or pay him damages. The case carne off before Judge Hosmer, in Detroit, and while in progress Judge. Hosmer received a letter, purporting to come from a man in Ann Arbor, referring to Mr. Morgan in decidedly uncomplimentary terms. After showhig the letter to Morgan's counsel Judge Hosmer tore it up and threw it away. The fragmenta were pickeij up and pasted together and nöw form one of the counts in the present case. -4" ït ís charged by Morgan that the let- ter was written by Ffed Ci Andrews, who is secretary of the Dress Stay Co., and the writing is in some respects similar to Mr. Andrews' writing. The plaintifE also charges Andrews with Influencing Mr. Glover to reject his, Morgan's, machine and asks for $10,000 damages. Thus the entire question of the merits and demerits of the machine were brought into court. Mr. Glover is thoroughly conversant with the manufacture of the stays and in his testimony explained the many ways in which the machine was imperfect and could not possibly do what it was contracted to do. He decided to throw out the machine entirely on his oiïn knowledge of its defects and defective working. Many witnesses have been examliK to show what the machine did ani not do. In the case of the letter Mr. Andrews swears positively that he did not write it and several witnesses who are practical experts have been examined pro and con in the matter. The defense has introduced a number of letters written by Mr. Morgan himself in which there is much similarity in style of writing to that in the disputed letter. The general trend of the expert testimony is that it is not probable that Mr. Andrews wrote the letter. Many people who heard Mr. Glover's testimony remarked on the thorough knowledge he displayed of the working of all the maehlnery although not a machinist, The testimony was concluded Satu:day noon, the remainder of the day and nearly all of Monday being occupied with the arguments. The jury wus charged yesterda afternoon and spent the night in deliberation, bringín in a verdict for $2,500 damages for the plalntiff at 9 o'clock this morning. The jury carne in for instructions several times last evening and this mon.ing. The verdict was a surprise, neariy everybody believing , that it would be for the defense. The case will be ' pealed.