The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-04-18
u. =. Circuit Court.
Present Judge Thorn pson.


fore readers verbatim report the charge delivered
by Judge Thompson Friday last 1t is subject OF deep
interest to the citizens of New York. Although Mr.
Stew ems is the defendant record, the Water Commits
soners are the real defendants in the cause was sta
ted by Messrs Graham aud Foot the counsel for the
Commissioners that their prime pa object in testing Mr.
NorTss right under mis- patent to break down his
monopoly and the citizens the difference between
the price (Sl 5 for each lap which Mr. Norris will
charge for the use of his machine for boring and tapping
the Croon water pipes, and the price Zone dollar which
Mr. Aliens machine. which was constructed at the in
stance OF the Commissioners, would COST
GENTLEMEN:-
This case is somewhat important to the parties imme-
diately nterested also important to the public gen.
orally Therefore requires great degree of deibera
ton not only from the Couri but from yout is an i'm
men this is divided into two branches the of law
and the other Of fact and far respects all questions
ofaw they under the control Of the Court and the
marks which shall make upon that branch OF the case
will be addressed more to counsel than to The first
objection 10 the patent is that does not appear In evil
dence that the second patent grown any
take the first but contended that it
argement fthe first patent and covers new invention
not embraced by the first patent. When mis-
take is made in the first patent the parties claiming to
rectfy that mistake bound to show that it occurred
through accident and not through Fraud and to enable
them TO do so enquiries should be made in the office
OF the Secretary of State the Commissioner OF paen
at Washington and should bs made before the enquiries
in this Court were commenced, but with those enquiries
this Court have now nothing to do. Gentlemen it is me-
cessary that all the requirements contemplated by the
statute relating patent rights should be fully complied
wh but that statute only directory to the Commission
er of Patents but still he is bound before he issues
cond patent to see thatn requirements ofthe law
complied with. II he be ised that they and issues
the patent then it is conclusive Courts of law and the
second patent shall have the same effect if ncorpora
ted in the first PATENT but in this case the law as laid
down by defendants counsel would present most sngu-
lar state facts Let suppose case-the Commits, ion
er of Patents issue. second patent without seeing that
the requirements Of law have been complied with In such
case the consequence would be that the paentee would
be cut out from all rights under both patents, the Com
missioner would cancel the first patent, and this Court
would cancel the second Congress never intended to
make such law; but where there is between
the first and second patent the party is bound to show
that was mistake and that no fraud intended but
in this case has bee said that the second patent enar-
ged the first and covered new ground not embraced in
the former paten in this case do not think the paten-
tee has gone that length. appears to that his OBJ
ec in taking out the second patent to correct and
not enlarge the specification in the first patent Gentle
men, in the specification OF patent the patentee is
bound to give such description of his invention
enable the public to avail themselves of that
inv en,ion-and that he himself might have the full
benefit from the patent To define what the pa
tenee claims ando preserve It to him. is the use and OBJ
ject Of specification. fit be found that there
IN the speccaton the first patent, the paentee has
RICH, to taae out second patent but the patent
can only correct the in the specification of the
first There can be enlarg Of the right II the pa
tentee has Improved his invention he include the
improv in the second patents for those he must
take out patent, and before he does the old pa
tent must be annued do not think that in this
there any enlargement of the rights granted by the first
patent The description in both patents the in
terms The machine is the same under the first patent
that it is in the second patent is the identical
machine described in both these patents II exhibit
ed for the purpose of testing its operations Those
hbitions which made in pursuance Of the Act of
1898 may be considered as eic alton of the invention to
the public They were made in lSi and up to the It'll
OF June no improvements mad. attempted but it
is commended that in the fall OF lsl the machine
hbited, and then appeared for the first time that
enlarged and new Improvements made. lhave examined
the specifications in both patents and does appear
that the specification in the second patent enarges
processes TO any mprov ement but only
the of precision in the first specification Under
the first patent, it is commended that the chamber
constituent part of the machine and it therefore the
object OF the patentee that part OF his
did not secure it. so far regarded his patent right
was los and there was any omission in the LIST ca
ton OF the enlargement OF the chamber and the combina
ton OF the several parts connected with the chamber
he had right that omission in the first patent
The second spec alton all the other parts of
the machine with the chamber; and the connex
ion of those several parts he on further and claims
the parts connected with the improvement of the
chamber that the drill and ierret by this he
have to secure those separate parts together with
The chamber, and hus he has enlarged his sp fcaon
which he has right to do, but he has enlarged his
patent patentee has right to apply to the patent
any omission in the first patent; and he Is entitled
to his remedy so Tar his real invention violated he
there violation OF his rights, he is entitled recover
for il. An invention consists combination
produce useful resut-ar result not known before, and
which is useful to the public, and Is entitled
violate his right to this invention If pafenee claims
than his patent covers h. has right
Tor that which is not embraced IN his patent; but
has right to violate the patent right another because
no claims than his patent The first has
right to enjoy his Improvement but if he claims any
thing beyond that, he has Lex al right it, and is
thrown open to the public. Mr. Allen, the officer of the
Wat' Commissioners claims an Improvement upon Nor
ris's machine Aliens machine is worked by lever,
Norris's by hand the working by alever is in
vention and net growing out OF Norriss Mr.. Allen is
entitled to the benefit of it, but If upon an inspection OF
Norris's machine Mr. Allen fit 10 adopt lever instead
Of hand it does not seem to TO be invention,
improvement on Norris's machine. Gentlemen have
disposed OF the law of the case and the question OF
fact arises That is whether violation Of Noriss right
to the invention OF his machine has taken place not
To arrive at satisfactory conclusion upon this point it is
to what the component parts of both
machines The combination of the principal parts OF both
machines consist in chamber valve drill and errele7
for the purpose dreaming off and stopping the from
flowing ofthe hole in the pipe in which the cock
be inserted cautioned you already against pay ing too
much attention to what has been said upon the OF
the parties in bringing this question before the court
But all Cases where party comes into court to
enquire what the object of his patent is and what he
seeks to protect enforce Then what the object here
IL is to stop the water The machine is fixed for the pHr
pose of connecting with the pipes That the object
and in it consists the sole merit OF the machine The
witnesses all that this is the object of the chamber
but Of them il is accomplished perfectly by
machine than the other but they both constructed
on the same piincplecomposed of the parts. Mr.
Aliens machine dispens,s with of the parts that
compose Norrss machines they both consist OF the drill
the ferrelet and valve the only difference Allens
worked by lever and Norris by hand In Aliens the
stopper is called thumb-in Norris is called valve
but this is only change of name Aliens operates TO
stop water, the object is accomplished by Norris
valve; is matter whether il Is called valve,
thumb stopper the object Of both is TO stop the flow
OF waer they both act in the same and produce the
eHect. III uOes not any
Norris machine accompshes the object; Il is new
and useful the witnesses tell you that up to isai they
heard ofsuch thing either in Europe or this
try any where else therefore you must conclude that
is they have accurately described 1t both in prn-
ciple and detail and the wonder in mind that iron
its simplicity, il not discovered before; but that does
not deract from its'merit prevent II from being
nvention and if Mr.. Norris entitled at all he il entitled
TO the full benefit OF 1t. In all cases mostly happens
hat witnesses likely to form their judgm
and conclusions from the outward form of machinery
han from the principles upon which they constructed
Or the results prod ced Ivy those principles II very
rue that two machines that perform the opera
ion and produce he same effects, often very dis
similar in their external appearance may he work
I'd by lever and another by screw. II is true how
aver, as az abstract proposition that lever is not
Grew; yet they both produce the same results The
'ase before us an illustration OF this principle Aliens
machine is worked by lever Norris's by the naked
iand, and the same purpose is effected ~ both You
must not, therefore, orm uhgm from the cxer