﻿58 
  History 
  of 
  Durham. 
  

  

  this 
  claim 
  of 
  the 
  plaintiffs 
  to 
  a 
  copyright 
  for 
  their 
  label 
  ; 
  

   nor 
  is 
  there 
  anj'thing 
  in 
  the 
  testimony 
  or 
  the 
  law 
  to 
  lead 
  us 
  

   to 
  discredit 
  it 
  and 
  brand 
  it 
  as 
  a 
  falsehood. 
  

  

  It 
  seems 
  to 
  me, 
  therefore, 
  that 
  both 
  these 
  charges 
  are 
  un- 
  

   founded. 
  They 
  spring 
  from 
  the 
  heat 
  of 
  forensic 
  contests. 
  

   They 
  pertain 
  to 
  the 
  polemics 
  of 
  the 
  bar. 
  Their 
  effect 
  is 
  to 
  

   provoke 
  recrimination. 
  Hence, 
  the 
  plaintiffs' 
  counsel 
  re- 
  

   taliate 
  by 
  imputing 
  falsehood 
  to 
  the 
  defendant 
  in 
  dating 
  his 
  

   purchase 
  of 
  Wright 
  1st 
  of 
  January, 
  when 
  he 
  had 
  stated 
  

   in 
  his 
  answer 
  he 
  would 
  not 
  bu^^ 
  till 
  he 
  had 
  ascertained 
  his 
  

   title 
  by 
  certificates 
  ; 
  and 
  those 
  very 
  certificates 
  bore 
  the 
  

   subsequent 
  date 
  of 
  the 
  6th 
  of 
  that 
  month. 
  The 
  imputa- 
  

   tion 
  seems 
  plausible; 
  but 
  the 
  transaction 
  is 
  susceptible 
  of 
  a 
  

   more 
  charitable 
  construction, 
  v\'hich 
  I 
  deem 
  it 
  my 
  duty 
  to 
  

   put 
  upon 
  it. 
  Dates 
  are 
  commonly 
  immaterial, 
  and 
  often 
  

   misapplied 
  in 
  business 
  transactions. 
  The 
  main 
  fact 
  is 
  

   doubtless 
  correctly 
  stated 
  by 
  the 
  defendant, 
  though 
  he 
  is 
  

   made 
  himself 
  to 
  confront 
  it 
  by 
  a 
  mistaken 
  date. 
  

  

  I 
  am 
  glad, 
  therefore, 
  to 
  have 
  it 
  in 
  my 
  power 
  to 
  state 
  that 
  

   there 
  is 
  nothing 
  in 
  this 
  cause 
  to 
  affect 
  the 
  fair 
  fame 
  of 
  the 
  

   parties, 
  plaintiffs 
  or 
  defendant. 
  They 
  are, 
  doubtless, 
  respect- 
  

   able 
  men, 
  and 
  enterprising 
  manufacturers 
  of 
  tobacco 
  in 
  

   their 
  respective 
  communities. 
  They 
  are 
  engaged, 
  as 
  I 
  be- 
  

   lieve, 
  in 
  the 
  honest 
  pursuit 
  of 
  their 
  rights 
  as 
  they 
  respect- 
  

   ively 
  understand 
  them. 
  The 
  defendant 
  has 
  acted 
  on 
  the 
  

   information 
  of 
  another, 
  under 
  whom 
  he 
  claims. 
  He 
  has 
  

   obeyed 
  the 
  order 
  of 
  this 
  court. 
  The 
  only 
  thing 
  I 
  have 
  to 
  

   regret 
  is, 
  that 
  the 
  same 
  deference 
  was 
  not 
  paid 
  by 
  another 
  

   manufacturer, 
  who, 
  though 
  no 
  party 
  to 
  this 
  suit, 
  could 
  not 
  

   have 
  been 
  ignorant 
  of 
  it 
  from 
  his 
  near 
  relation 
  to 
  the 
  de- 
  

   fendant. 
  But 
  the 
  plaintiffs 
  have 
  not 
  chosen 
  to 
  bring 
  him 
  

   before 
  this 
  court, 
  save 
  by 
  proving 
  his 
  acts 
  in 
  the 
  use 
  of 
  the 
  

   simulated 
  mark, 
  notwithstanding 
  the 
  injunction 
  upon 
  his 
  

   brother. 
  

  

  I 
  am 
  sure 
  the 
  plaintiffs 
  and 
  the 
  defendant, 
  as 
  enterprising 
  

   dealers, 
  will 
  find 
  their 
  ultimate 
  interests 
  subserved 
  by 
  the 
  

   doctrine 
  I 
  have 
  sought 
  to 
  expound 
  and 
  maintain 
  as 
  to 
  their 
  

   trade-marks. 
  Whoever 
  may 
  now 
  be 
  the 
  loser 
  by 
  it 
  may 
  

   soon 
  have 
  occasion 
  to 
  invoke 
  it 
  for 
  his 
  own 
  protection 
  ; 
  and 
  

   they, 
  whose 
  rights 
  are 
  now 
  sustained, 
  must 
  learn 
  thereby 
  

   to 
  respect 
  those 
  of 
  other 
  competitors 
  in 
  their 
  business, 
  at 
  

   the 
  same 
  time 
  that 
  they 
  may 
  take 
  encouragement 
  to 
  them- 
  

   selves 
  from 
  their 
  present 
  success. 
  All 
  intelligent 
  men, 
  en- 
  

  

  