The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-09-19

The Teleernph Suit.

J,ingement of Morse's Patent for The {" .ams,ican
Electro Magnetic Isieg,aph."
The motion made upon the bill Of Morse &C.,
hibitt accompanied by copies of his patents original
and reissued and sundry afdavits we'll to show the
right by the defendants. Notice being given of the
motion, the defendant. O'Reilly appeared, by his
counsel, Hon. Henry Pi-tle, VIM Y. Gholson, Esq of
Cincinnati, and Mr.. c. Johnson Esq, Attorney Gene
raj of Kentucky and produced his to the bill of
compliments accompanied by an additional affidavit,
incorporating sundry documents extracts from scen
thc periodicals. newspapers, sfidavits all which
read and considered, without objection their
potency. The motion was made on the Oath August,
and a decision thereon given the 9th Sept The
compliments were representedby S. LouRhborough,
Esqg District Attorney, Hon. A: X. Wooley, and Hon.
Ben Monroe The reading of the pleadipgs, and'exhi
bits and afdavs, &C., occupied seven days, and the
difcus sion eight days
The utmost range of objection was taken by the de-
fendnnts' counsel IL was conceded that Morse was
not the inventor of the telegraph that Stein
hell Of Munich in Germany, had prior to Morses ap-
plication for patent invented and put in operation,
electric telegraph that the combined circuits
which appear in Morse's first patent were not invent
ed by him that Edward Davy, of London, had OBJ
operating by combined circuits and that Morse had
obtained the idea from Davy. and on his return from
combined circuit, in his specifications made under
his application filed in the patent office in 1885, before
ton his first patent was issued in June 1sso 'pe0'n0A
Various objections were taken to the validity of
Morse's first patent and to the Reissues thereof in
1s46 and 1s4s well as to his patent for improve
ment upon his original ipve ntion issued April 1886
and the reissues thereof in June 1s4s
Among the objections urged to the main patent
LIST. The alleged alteration of the specification.
I'd The effect Of Morse's having obtained n patent
in France for the same invention. in August, 1888.
Sd. That his specifications claimed a monopoly OF
the Of the gavanic current for recording at
distance by machinery, other than that specified in
4th. That Morse claimed as part of his patented
rights system of signs for an alphabet, net properly
the subject matter OF patent.
In regard to the patents for the improvements 1t
was, among other things, objected. lat: That they
pate being In that view attempt to extend tho
period Of the monopoly. I'd That the new patents
did not sufficiently distinguish what the improve
nent fre IL what was embraced in the main patent.
3D. That no patent could issue to o patentee for an
Improvement upon his own invention. 4th That
some part OF tns Improvement bad been in public
OF the pstentee May other objections were urged
by the defendsnts counsel.
IN eie nee to the infringement, it was commended
" me defen dants that the Columbian telegraph used
by tbem said to have been the invention Of Barnes
Zook, was distinct Independent invention, and its
part Of the compliments insisted that the evi.
dence showed that Morse invented the telegraph as
early as 1882 and perfected and exhibited it in janu-
airy. 1886 that he invented and put in operation,
early in 1887, the combined circuit that Steinhelps
telegraph INVENTION was not published until Septem-
Der, 1885, and, that there evidence that it
invented prior to that Of Morse and whenever in
vented it not the telegraph which patented to
Morse that, as to the combined circuit embraced in
the patent of Davy under which his specifications
enrolled the 4th Of January 1889, they were
embraced in Morse, patent from the French govern.
ment. granted in August, 1883, from which Davy
might have obtained the idea
As to the validity Of the patents it insisted that
none Of the objections taken by the defendants
available And as to the infringement IL contend
ed by compliments that the machine used by defend
ants violation both Of the principle and process
The apparatus Of Morse, and that claimed as the in
vention of Barnes Zook, called the Columbian Tele-
graph exhibited before the judge and fully exa-
m N N q of aci man Rad ~
plantations were made by Mr.. Barnes and Professor
opinion in which he stated the different points made by
counsel as well on behalf of the claim to injunction
the objections Of the defendants counsel.
As to the invention, he decided that the evidence
satisfactory to his mind that Morse the true
and original inventor of the teegraph-that the only
evidence in regard to Steinhel invention without
considering whether 1t was the Morse not,)
publication upon his authority September 1885
in which he stated that he had built his line of tele
graph from Munich to Bourgenhausen, q distance of
elk miles, which had been in operation without repairs
for more than one year
also satised that it invented by him early In
1887, DAVIS specifications Of his invention not being
Merses French patent in which the principle was dis
closed As to the alleged alteration in the specica
ton In Morses first patent though alleged by defend
ant in his answer the evidence failed to establish it,
and question to the effect of such alteration did
not therefore arise and proved he not
to say that 1t would vitiate the patent.
As to the supposed effect Of the patent issued in
France upon the patents subsequently issued in this
contended for by counsel that the appli-
cation for the patent in this country altered and
that it should take the date Of the alleged
Of the request of Morse to Issue the patent his
return from Europe, could be sustained But IL these
posit could be sustained the question would then
for years. whether it's effect would not be
only to limit the operation Of the patent to the period
of fourteen from the date Of the French patent
Aeto the general claim in the main patent of Morse,
he did not consider the objections of the
well grounded and even If it were too broad it did
not to him that the effect upon the validity of
the patent would be such the counsel for defendants
contended.
Other objections taken by defendants counsel to
the validity OF the patents were noticed and each
oyerrued.
Upon the question Of Infringement the judge
expressed himself fully satisfied that the instru-
ments exhibited by the defendants in its structure
and mode Of operation violated the principle of Morse
patent and the process and means described by Morse
in his tpecihcations; and If the general claim of
Morse was invalid still he of opinion that infringe
me mt was made out.
As to the alleged prior use of some things in Morse
second series Of patents he did not find in the evil
anything to warrant the clusion that It
been Of such character to effect the validity Of the
patents
AS to the proprety Of granting the injunc ton it
seemed to him upon the whole that the complain
ants had shown such ground required that It
should be awarded, first, because they had shown q
possession acquested in,for long time by the public
at large and for some time recognized and acquesced
in by the defendant, O'Reilly himself and, that It
would be as unjust to refuse injunction q case
clearly showing right would be to grant it in
case where no right was shown.
The judge said that in he had given to the
defendants leave to continue the of the machine
which alleged to be used in violation of patented
rrht Of complainant, upon giving bond and security
account for the profit Of the but that in this
he did not deem 1t proper to do and that abso-
Lutte injunction would be awarded upon compainants
giving bond and security in the penalty Of 00 with
condition to indemnify against any injury
that might accrue to them in complainant should
fail to have the injunction perpetuatsd Injunction
absolute awarded
Common Council.
Board OF ASSISTANT ALDERMEN.-WILsoN SMALL