Do you hold the power of attorney for Merriam & Co?—I do not.
Was this suit instituted under your instructions?—It was not.
Merriam & Ca. have no office in Shanghai, have they?—They have no office here in Shanghai or in China, as far as I know.
Have they any property here?—They have considerable properly here, no real estate, but in books.
Who is their attorney?
Mr. Krisel interrupted and stated that his firm held the power of attorney and produced the commission for the Bench.
In reply to questions referring to the' trademark of plaintiff firm, Mr. Evans stated that their trademark, particularly the word "Webster" could be used in that form only by Merriam &.Co., and that other companies when using this word were obliged to differentiate it from the original. He cited the instance of Funk Wagnalls who were obliged to, use the firm name over the word "Webster." Witness then proceeded to describe the form of the trademark, showing the broken wreath round the three words "Webster's Collegiate Dictionary" and declared that in the prospectus the words "Chinese translation" were in smaller type. Handed an enlargement, alleged to have been reproduced from the prospectus, witness denied that enlargement and prospectus were the same.
Mr. Fleming—Then you think that some one is trying to put. something over on you?—Not on me, on the public.
When handed prospectus by Mr. Fleming, witness declared that he could not distinguish the characters in the break in the wreath of the trademark. Continuing, Mr. Evans declared" that the very name of the book led the purchaser to believe that Merriam Ca. were the publishers, and that many people had asked him about the resemblance, and who was really preparing it, also that the "words," the column of sample cofinitions, lead them to believe that they are the same.
Mr. Fleming—Is there anything in the prospectus that resembles the G. & C. Merriam Co?—Yes; the trademark and the "wreath and circle.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.