Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "75730613",
    "label": "Lab Results, no date",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75730613"
}

{
    "id": "75730613",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75730613",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Lab Results, no date",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75730613",
    "collections": [
        "Safety Light Collection",
        "Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003663_Page_1.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003663_Page_1.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003663_Page_1.jpg",
    "imageCount": 4,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75730613",
    "naId": 75730613,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 4,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0003663.pdf",
    "mediaId": "42cf38545db945ab",
    "ocrText": "Newark, N. J.\nMy dear Vice Chancellor,\nWe have given careful consideration to\nthe suggestion which you made on the 22nd inst.,\nwhich we understand as follows: That we rest our\ncase for the sole purpose of securing a determina-\ntion whether the actions at law of the complainants\nare barred by the Statute of Limitations; that\nyou will then hear argument upon this question and\nthat if you conclude that the actions are not barred\nby the Statute the bills of complaint will be dis-\nmissed.\nWe feel that we should not adopt this\nsuggestion for the following reasons:\nFirst. Our client has been charged with a\nserious fraud and as yet has had no opportunity to\nproduce evidence which refutes such charge. We\n2\nbelieve that the charge is ill-founded and that the\nevidence which will be produced on the part of the\ndefendant will support this belief.\nWe think\nthat our client should have the opportunity to pro-\nduce this evidence before any decree in the cases\nshall be made.\nSecond. We have given the question as to\nwhether the actions at law are barred by the Statute\nof Limitations very careful consideration and have\nreached the conclusion that they are barred.\nThis\nis the position which we have taken in the actions\nat law and we think that we should not take an in-\nconsistent position in the Court of Chancery.\nThird. On the first day of the hearing after\ncounsel on both sides had opened the case to the\ncourt Mr. Smith stated to the court that he believed\nthat Mr. Berry should state on the record whether\n3\nor not he conceded that the actions at law were\nbarred by the Statute. Mr. Berry stated that\nthat was his position. We find, upon an examina-\ntion of the transcript of the testimony, that this\ndoes not appear.\nIt is quite possible, however,\nthat it may be in the reporter's notes although not\ntranscribed by him. At the same time we stated\nthat it was our position that the actions were barred\nby the Statute.\nMay we suggest that this\nquestion is not before the court for determination\nsince all parties agree that the actions are barred.\nWe regret that we are not in a position to\nadopt the suggestion made. We have, however, as\nabove stated, given it careful consideration and we\nbelieve that the interests of our client compels\nus to take the course above indicated.\nVery truly yours,"
}