Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1813-05-06

chinery in question, it having been erected
| before the special act OR the grant Of letters
patent to the plaintiff and ,Atcr The expiration
of the former letters patent, when 1t not
| unlawful TO erect o. use the same. And last
~, that the act for Oliver Evans' relief W eA-
| post Jacto !: that it impaired the obligation of
| contracts and was therefor unconstitutional !;
he having obtained letters patent IN 1870, for
the same improvements which had expired
! before the act aforesaid had pass d II not al
terinG the ease that the Is, patent was dcoiar-
| cd judiciaily to be null and void for defect OF
| form.
The cowt Judges Duvail AMI Iioustcnf de-
ciared that the letters patent N controversy,
were issued conform Abe 10 law. That The dc
, claration good and sufficient tn maintain
the plaintiffs case, esi Abiishsd ~ proof
some of the courts siledg'ng that The deten
dant used the patented Improvements general
ly, and others, part of he Improvement. That
the plaintiffs conveyor being new and useful
Improvement ON the contmlcd and spiral
screw, and applied TO q new and useful pur-
pose entitled HIN TO patent Ter hs improved
conveyor.- Tn 1t Inc 81 provision IN the act for
Evans relief, passed the twenty first ct Jauua-
airy eighteen hundred and eight. protected the
defendant from any liability 10 pay damages
for using the machiUeE without license pew
ous 20 the grantiug Of " patent,but not for any
subsequent use. fthar m tho opinion OF the
court, inc act reicVeu 10, IS iOt oh SNtoSu iac-
to law, for that rgfates q crlminHl cases only
that it docs not Spair the ohls atoms &C con
| tracts, or inteIPre with any rIgh!s previously
| acquired by ve community; ia, ON the con-
| uary the Legislature has c'Inc,d its attention
to ndividuN rights, by exemptIng, IN speci-
al ProvlsoNil persons From the obligation to-
renew a1hceisc, purchase GnCter The former
pa,ent ha' congress have The exclusive right
by the &nstitutioa, to limit The times for which
n. ritrIt ,.I ha cd nd NOT
resi- f4.ned from renewing patent or prolong-
| lngEfhe time of its continuance ;-morc especi-
~ in the present case, wnere the patent
2fAnted in the first instance had been decided,
" judicial authority, tobe null and void on &C
teount OF some detect in the patent
The jury brought in verdict OF eighteen
hundred and .ftiy dollars damages.
N. B. These damages were given for four
years antt nine months use of the machinery,
covering all the time, by consent of parties
no to the period OF trial +; and for the right 20
use the machinery in future without limitation
Of time.
The second cause which was tried, was a
gainst Charles G.. Jones, IN which the verdict
was fer one Thousand collars damages; with the
same agreement, as TO license, as i'll the pre-
ceding verdict.
TO the Senate lind Route Of RefyssntHttVe cfthe
United States -
The memorial Oliver Evans respectfully
| sheweth, That your memorialist has been favor
ed with a copy of the memorial of John Wor-
Ellington and others, aud of the evidence accom-
panying the same which he has read with sur
prise; and your memorialist begs leave to de-
clare that he believes he yet prove every state
ment in the said memorial and evidence, tend
ing to shew That your memorialist is not the
original inventor of all and every of the ma
al.
combncr and applier of them to produce the
! useful result OF his great improvement on the
art of manufacturing flour andmeal, as patented
| to MIN, to be erroneous. But your memorial
| ist did never expect TO be put on this proof,
| more especially before Congress, seeing that
| courts are appointed by law for deciding on
such disputed points Yet if required by The
! hon. Congress, although most OF his intimate
| friends, to whom he communicated his disco
very years before he made it public, are dead,
he believes he can find one IN Quceu Anne's
county, eastern shore Of Msrylahd, where your
memorialist lived when he made the discovery,
one living in New Castle county, Delaware, one
in Mifilin county, Penn. ande ene in the city of
Westinghouse, Evan Evans.
And to prove that he set up The machinery
| in his mill in par, on Red Clay Greek, y. Cas-
| tie county, and then made it public by present.
! ing a subscription paper, setting forti the
1
| neighboring mllcrs would subscribe a sufiici-
eut sum, your memorialst would make the i'm
proven. Mt, which he has since done-but that
on the millers refusing to subscribe any thing,
| and OH being advised by James Lattiner, esq.
(now deceascd) to apply to the state legislature
for exclusive rghts,-hc took down his machi-
| merry, and secreted them until he should receive
nose exclusive rights--that it was after all
this that Stroud dlscogered tile elevntor-and
Marshall and Stroud attempted to make the
OF Delaware, and in philadelphia, to support
the testimony of Evans, TO whom all is well
known. In corroboration he may procure CO..
pies Of his petitions to the legislatures Of Penn
sylvsnia, Delaware, Mary lRnd' and New Hanp-
/ shirc, petitionlng for tie exclusive RIGHT for
twenty one OF twenty five years, not only for his
improvement in manufacturing Aour, but for
steara carriages OF his invention-and also CO..
pies ofthe acts nhis favor of Pennsylvania and
| Delaware for tie mill mprovementyonly,. Mary.
land and New Hampshire for steam Wagons
| also for II years ---too short a time, had il
! carriages might have been in use twenty years
ago.
/ Thus your rnemorialist could shew what have
! been his pursuits, and he begs Ifavc to refer
T. thc SECRETARY Of states Office, to the specica-
| tons he has filed there Of ogeral other great
! profits thereof beginning to appear.
Your memorialist acknowledges that he has
raised the price Of his license 10 use his inYen~
1 tions and Improvements, as their value became
] known, from bestowing them gratis, with his
| thanks 10 those who would accept them 10
make their utility kGown TO S So, 8 40, S 100,