722 FaPEBAL: REPORTES. �does not put up the bluing foi liimaelf , but for a firm by the name of Barron & Co., ■ vbo direoted him to adopt the label in question. But this is no, excuse for him unless Barron & Co. were entitled to use the label.. The defendant attempts to sbow that they bad such a title by baving hired from Sawin the right to use bis name. This pretext is too sbal- low. It is shown, indeed, that Sawin did manufacture blu- ing, and used a label of bis own, but it was wbolly unlike the label in question. The use of bis name by Barron & Co., in the label complained of, was evidently obtained for the puipose of making it more closely resemble Sawyer's. Saw- in's bluing had no such reputation in the community as to make it an object to hire bis name. As the label stands it speaks a falsehood. The article covered by it is not "Saw- in's Soluble Blue," and it is not "prepared by W. E. Sawin, Jr.," as stated at the foot of the label. It evidently speaks this falsehood for a purpose, and that purpose, we are satis- fied, is to obtain a doser imitation of Sawyer's label. It is no excuse for the defendant that he does this work for other persons. He is just as guilty as if be did it for himself. Ail who are concerned in the commission of a tort are alike amenable to the party injured. �It is suggested, however, that the label complained of is the same in all respects which the ; defendant had used for several. years prior to its adoption by Barron & Co., with the exception of the fiaption, in which Sawin's name bas been introdueed instead of bis own. This only goes to show thati the adoption of Sawin's name was regarded as important in carrying out the plan of Barron & Co. The question readily suggestg itself, wby did they prefer Sawin's name to Kellogg's in the oaption of the label? No sufficient reason is shown except that it enabled them more closely to imitate the com- plainant's. No doubt Kellogg would baye been perfectly willing, and glad, to have used his own name, and then the label would, at leastv have told the truth. It is unneeessary to add that the argument assumes that Kellogg's label itself was free from objection as an ; imitation of tha,t of: the oom-. ��� �
