Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-12-17
COMMUNICATION.

from a Philadelphia and baltimore paper. ap-
Feared III the ENQUIRER OF Saturday last-the
OBJECT OF which was TO inform the public, that
IN late case decided in the Circuit Court of
Pennsylvania, it was proven, that Oliver Evans
was not the inventor of the machine called the
HoppeI-6oy.
The writer of this paragraph has good reason
10 believe, that the publisher of that statement
has not a proper understanding of the judgment
OF She court, which was (as will probably be
made appear from the record ITSELF the result
OF course OF legal proceeding, in which the
testimony of the plaintiff was excluded, and
decision favourable TO the defendant given BY
the court-Ihe question of the originality of
the invention, ii will appear, formed no part eli
ther OF the investigation or dgment-N OF will
1t be found to afie ct the claims of the patentee
beyond the Ii,ticutdr case decided, on the spe-
cIal pleadings had.
Those, who have noticed the publications
heretofore made on the subject of these patent
claims, and the unfair, uncandid manner i'm
which Mr.. Evans's claims have been attacked
and attempted TO be undermined--willn not feel
astonlshment or emotion of any Kind at such
publications as those recently made.
The originality ofal Mr.. Evans's patented
inventions has already undergone Cn trials had
in Baltimore and other places, the most labo-
rlous Investigations, by testimony from the
mouths of tie most respectable witnesses-and
those trials eyentuated completely in the esta-
blishment of the fairness OF Mr.. Eyans's claims,
and many exemplary damages were awarded
hum, under the aggravated circumstance of the
defendants not only refusing his just demand,
but using the most uugenerOus and uniustitia-
bic efforts to destroy his rights.
An opinion may be formed of the nature of
tile enmity Mr.. Evans has had to contend with,
from the circumstance of these men no had
combined to destroy his rights having, after
their defeat in Il court of justice, attempted to
destroy his patent, By the practice of an impo-
sitiOn on Congress.
Theintendedlimi of this publication will not
admit ora full insertion Of the memorial pre-
nt Ill.
my be found IN Niles Weekly Register i'm tine.
addenda tC vol. 3dwlth the proof its false
hood--but, rs the subject OF the hopper-boy is
the only ore 10 which this combination has d.
gam drawn thepublic attention, this cOmmuni-
cation shall at present be closed, by giving the
following extract from the memorial, aud its
correspondent refutatiOn
Sd. The Hopper-bOy-a machine upon the
same principle with Oliver Evanss aIledged
hopper-boy, worked by the same power, acting
IN the same manner upon the meal, and pro-
ducing the same effect, although not as benefi-
cially-was invented by Edward Marshall of
Delaware, and set to work in his mill, before
tlle time of Oliver EvansS supposed discovery
Dir. Evans lived in the neighbourhood of this
invention"
Yet, this statement, so indiscreetly offered.
on such an occasion, and to such body, Edward
Marshall, in the following affirmation, has di-
ectlycontradcted
{" Edward Marshall, of Newcastle County.
State of Delaware, being Solemnly affirmed 10
speak the truth, declares and says That he is
about - years OF age. and was instructed i'm the
business of d miller ~ early life, and pursued
the same generally as his profession; thatabout
the year 1865, or 1876, this affirmant's father
asked this afiirmant, what he thought ola ma
chine, that would take no the -four as fast as
ii was ground to which this afiirmant an
swered, that he thought il impossible; when
athrmanrs father replied, that Oliver Evans
said, he had invented sach machine He
says, this was the first time he ever heard fthe
elevator; that about this time, James Stroud
who rented the lower mill of " lillian 4, lanes
Marshall, and near 90 tue mill Of allirmants IA
tier, said, that he had found out the pfincirle
OF tllc elevator, and supposed il to- be- Oiyer f.
vans plan, and this affirDlant assisted in ma
king one according 20 such discovery that NJ
hrst, II did not work well f; bust, il was altered
so as 20 work better. The aftlrnlaEt SAYS that
after making such elevator, Sainaei Stroud in
vented a hOpper-boy, which on trial did not
answer the Intended purpose. That this afr.
Inant then altered the machinery OF said Sam
uel Stroud, but still it would NOT answer all
the purposes required, although much mprOy-
ed he says, that hcncver saw a perfect hop
per-boV, before Oliver EvanS'S plan, and he We
TIly believes, as nc always hath done that the
sad Oliver Evans Is the original and true in
ventor of the hOpper-boy, now commonly in
use and he also believes thar said Oliver T.
vans IS the first inventor of The elevator, now
likewise IN cOmmOu use in mills for man
ufacturng Hour. The afiiruart further saws
that his iathcr paid to Oliver Evans
certun sum, For the privilege o. using his eic-
vator and hoppcr-boy, in the lower mn belong
ing 20 has said father the receipt Tor which nov
IS, oriaieiy was, in the possession OF this aflir-
mauts brother.
(signed) EDWARD MARSHALL.
Affirmed and signed before me, the
H. 81 10th Of November. 1872.
SAMUEL SIEREfI, Not. Fnb.
slt.I1gre: