The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1828-12-03
From the ". Y. Commercial Advertiser.
PATENT TRIAL,

tCihNOtA OF UNITED
Grant and Townsend, Plaintiffs +. and
H. Raymond, Deiendents.
This action WAS brought for the infringe
ment of the patent right Of the plaInttts Tor
a machine for making hat bodies. Tie ue-
PENDANTS contended that a machine acting
upon the same principle, anu producing Tie
same results, had been invented anu Put IN
operation by one Silas Mason, long before
the invention o. the plaintiffs ma, hIiie, and
that, therefore the plaintiffs not being the
true inventors, could not recover, but that
their patent was void.
But if the plaintiff, Grant, was the true
inventor, the defendants Uontendeu that line
patent was void for the following reasons
| That 1t was patent, not ioI u Ilii.ch Ine, hut
for an abstract principle that the spec III
cation was false III claiming as an invention
that when had been long before known;
and that the specification anu drawing ue-
posted in the Setretary's office, were III
sufficient, and would not give IA mechanic
sufficient data from which To make the ma
chine. Upon this latter point, host of
witnesses we're examined Oh both SItes lint
the decision OF the Court reniereu their tes-
tlmony ummportant. A luminous ciar1e
was given tn the jury, 10y his honor Judge
! Thompson, IN the course of when he com
mented upon the various questions of law
raised IN The cause, and gave his opinion IN
relation to them. The plaintiff, Grant, had
obtained patent IN the year 1921, winch
he surrendered IN 1925, ana took out a new
one. The Judge decided that he had tne
/ Ilght ana power SO to do, and that his pres
ent patent must be considered in the same
light as II no other had been issued.
Inat an abstract principie was no. pa-
tentabie, the Judge said was clearly law.
/ out this patent was not liable to that ublec
'lon. tie also charged that the sperltl,a
tons ami drawings in the Secretary s office
might both lie used To make the Inac..lne.
and II 1t could be made from tile two 10.
| gether 1t ~ould be sufficient, hut that the
model there deposited could not he used tor
that purpose. lie then compared our stat
ute with the English statutes, and dccIded
that the jury must believe under our stat
ute thai the specification WAS defective bv
reason 81 the fraudulent or Intentional con-
cedtmem oil the patentee, or otherwise the
patent would be good. He perhaps would
not he perfectly satisfied of the correctness
OF tins position, had it not been already ex-
pressly decided in the u S. CIrcuI; Courts
in Boston and Philadelphia.
The great question was then submitted
w WV JhiJS tStCutCf VI uOL OTunL UuS The
true inUentor Of the machine. The testimo-
ny, in relation to Mason's invention, was
fully commented upon, and the Jury were
Instructed that 1t was not necessary that
Mason should have taken out a patent In
order to take away the plaintiffs right
and, on the other hand, the plaintiffs light
would not he destroyed merely BECAUSE
Mason had produced the same result but
thnf bo ~ L
the same results by MACHINE acting upon
the sane principle as the plaintiffs.
AS to damages the Judge said it was a
question exclusively for the jury that the
plaintiffs should recover the actual damages
which they L~-I s~sta;no.i, and that the ne II
profits made ny the defendants was proba-
hIy the best rule to guide the jury in assess
ing them.
The jury, on Monday morning last, re-
turned sealed verdict in favor OF the
plaintiffs for tiCo thousand three hundred and
Sirty-sir dollars and Sirty-Sir CENTS, which
the Court are 10y law obliged to treble
making the judgment S9799,99, besides
costs.
! 1t appeared in evidence on the forepo-
ing trial. that the defendants purchased
right under Sllas Mason of Dedham, Mass
and then put into operation one or more of
Grants Machines. In 1885, they had four
OF the plaintiffs machines at work; in il 26
they employed six Of these machines; and,
in 1927, seven
SHOCKING Occurrence. The PeopIe'S
Friend, published at Little Falls Herkimer
! County, N. w contains the following =
! On the 18th inst. about dusk, the wife Of
Mr.. John Lepper, ami Sarah, black woman.
left Mrs. Lepper'S house in care of her two
Ichildren, "a hoy 5 and girl of 3 wears old.
and an infant child of Sarah. On the re-
turn of the women, and enquiry being made
for the black child, Amos the son of Mrs. L..
said that "a black man had killed il. The
infant was soon found near the door much
maneled, and the left leg cut off, hy an axe.
The little boy persisted that a black man
in light colored clothes killed il. and cnt
off the leg; pursuit was made, but no MUIR
derer found, till next morning, wiea ait
the excitement was over, the lutte girl said
that it cried while mamma was zone. and
her brother Amos 1.-THE hoy of 5 years) car
red it out and.killed it.
C. II the above fact he true, doubtless
.4mos will lie considered ms not having mr.
rived at years of discretion. The English
common law admits of no definite are Of
discretion, within which perpetrator of
crime is not held responsible. 1t depends
entirely on the particular circumstances of
the case. 1t cunning or arjfce lie develop
cd, with view to cOncealment. il goes far
to establish RESPONSIBLE discretion. no
matter how young the offender lie. This
Is the general rule. and there are cases
ciied in the English Criminal Lar Reports.
OF infants OF eteren, of nine, and I believe
as young AS seuen years of age, having been
on'"ied OF murder. In one ofihese juve-
nile cases. il appeared tint after The muir