Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/51

PEPPER V, LABBOT. 87 �third interrogatory.) And in answer to the seventh cross-interroga- tory he says : �"At the time my flrm commenced dealing in • Old Oscar Pepper ' whisky, that name added to the reputation and salability of the whisky, for the reason that that was the name of James E. Pepper's father, and his father had made good whisky at that very distillery for several years previous to the making of any by James E. Pepper." �It is beyond dispute that Ives, Beecher & Go. introdueed the eom- plainant's manufacture of whisky to the trade under the name of Old Oscar Pepper whiskies, upon the credit of the old distillery of Oscar Pepper, and recommended them as of superior excellence because they were the product of that distillery. This was done by advertisements in eirculars, containing certificates and affidavits, one from James B. Pepper himself, that he had put in the most thorough running order "the old distillery of my father, the late Oscar Pepper, now owned by me;" that "the celebrity attained by the wbiskey made by my father was ascribable to the excellent water used (a very supe- rior spring) and the grain grown on the farm adjoining by himself, and to the process observed by James Crow, after his death by W. F. Mitchell, his distillers;" that "I am now running the distillery with the same distiller, the same water, the same formula, and grain grown upon the same farm, consequently my product being of the same quality and excellence." Another certificate and aifidavit so published was from his mother, in which she stated that lier son, James E. Pepper, is the owner of the old distillery property situated in the county of Woodford, state of Kentueky, formerly owned by her deceased husband, Oscar Pepper, and known as the "Old Crow Distillery:" �" The. buildings have been thoroughly improved. Mr. ^Y. F. Slitchell, who distilled for the late Oscar Pepper, sueceeding James Crow, is employed by my son, and the product is of the highest excellence, and recognized as f ully up to the standard of the celebrated old product from the same stills." �And the distiller, Mitchell, also certifies: "I use the same water, the same grain, and the same still." �It does not avail the complainant now to repudiate these represen- tions, or to insist that they are altogether immaterial. It may be true, as he now says, that in point of f act his distillery was altogether distinct as a building and machinery from that so long operated by his father, and that he did not use the same spring of water and the same stills; and it may be equally true that, so far as the intrinsic quality of the whisky is concerned, the circumstances referred to ��� �