The daily crescent., 1848-09-27


From the Baltimore Sun.
The Great Telegraph Suit.
MORSE, EFT AL, Us. OREILLY,
Abstract of the Opinion of Judge Monroe, of the u s.
District Count of Kentucky.
Morse and Others Us ORALLY and others: On motion
Tor an IpjaacttoR 70 eHjotn the DefendGnts from an
infringement Of .Horse's Patent for the . America"
Electro. Magnetic Telegraph"
The motion was made upon the bill of Morse,
&C., exhibited, accompanied by copies OF his pa
tents, original and reissued, and sundry athdavlts
as well to show the period of the Invention as the
infringement of his patent right by the defendants
Notice being given of the motion, the Defendant
O'Reilly, appeared, by his counsel, Henry Pr
tie, VIM. Y. Gholson, of Cincinnati, and M u
Johnson, Attorney General of Kentucky, and pro-
duced his answer to the bill of cOmplainants, ac-
cOmpanied by an additional affidavit, incorporating
sundry documents, extracts from scientific perl0dl
Gals, newspapers, and af1idavits, all which were
read and considered without objection as to their
| competency. The motion was made on the 24th
August, and decision thereon given on the 9Th OF
| September. The complainants were represented by
| P. S. LoughbOrough, District-AttOrney, A. r.
| Woolley, and Ben. Monroe. The reading of the
peadings, and exhibits and affidavits, &c, occu
pied seven days, and the discussion eight days.
The utmost range of objection was taken by the
defendants counsel. 1t was contended that Morse
was not the inventor of the telegraph; that Pro-
fessOr Steinhei of Munich, in Germany, had, prior
| to Morse's application for patent, invented and
combined circuits which appear in Morse's first pa
| tent were not invented by him; that Edward
Davy, of London, had obtained patent in Eng
land for an electric telegraph, operating by COM
bned circuits, and that Morse had obtained the idea
from DaVY, and on his return from Europe in 1889
had interpoaed the principle of the combined cir
cuit in his specifications made under his applica-
ton filed in the Patent Office in 1885, before he
went to Europe and upon which altered specifca.
ton his first patent issued in June, 1910.
Various objections were taken to the validity of
Morse's first patent and to the reissues thereof in
1916 and 1913, as well to his patent for an i'm
provement upon his original invention, issued in
April 1916, and the reissue thereof in June, 184S
Among the objections urged to the main patent
were
1st. The alleged alteration of the specifications
I'd. The effect of Morses having obtained pa
tent in France for the same invention in August
1888.
Sd. That his specifications claimed monopoly
of the of the galvanic current for recording at
distance by machinery, other than that specified
in his patent.
4th. That Morse claimed as part of his patented
rights a system of signs for an alphabet, not pro-
perly the subject matter of patent.
In regard to the patents for the Improvements, it
was among other things, objected-1st That they
covered part of the subjects included in the first
patents, being in that view attempt to extend the
period of the monopoly. 3D. That the new pa
tents did not sufficiently distinguish what was the
improvement from what was embraced in the main
patent. 3. That no patent could issue TO paten-
tee for an improvement upon his own invention.
4th. That some part of the improvement had been
in public use, prior to the application for patent
with the consent of the patentee. Many other OBJ
eCtions were urged by defendants counsel.
In reference to the Infringement it contended
by the defendants that the Columbian telegraph
used by them, said to have been the invention of
Barnes and Zook, was distinct independent in
1fu AN
tented rights On the part of the complainants, it
was insisted that the evidence showed that Morse
invented the telegraph early as 1882, and per-
fected and exhibited it in January 1886; that he
invented and put in operation early in 1887 the
combined circuit; that Steinhiel's telegraph inven-
ton was not published until September, 1888 and
that there was no evidence that it was invented
prior to that of Morse, and whenever invented it
is not the telegraph which patented to Morse
that, as to the combined circuit, embraced in the
patent of Davy, under which his specifications
were enrolled on the 4th of January, 1882 theV
were embraced in Morse's patent from the French
| Government, granted in August, 1898, from which
| Davy might have obtained the idea.
As to the validity of the patents, it was insisted
that none of the objections taken by the defendants
were available. And to the Infringement, it was
| commended by complainants that the machine used
by the defendants was a violation both of the prin-
| ciple and process embraced in Morse's patent
The apparatus of Morse, and that claimed as the
invention of Barnes d Zook, called the columbian
Telegraph were exhibited before the Judge and
fully examined, and the affidavits of scientific men
| read. Explanations were also made by Mr.. Barnes
| and Professor Morse.
The Judge occupied several hours in delivering
his opinion, in which he stated the different points
made by counsel as well on behalf of the claim TO
an injunction as the objections of the defendants
| counsel.
AS to the invention, he decided that the evidence
was satisfactory to his mind that Morse was the
| true and original inventor of the telegraph-that
the only evidence in regard to Seinhiel's invention
| without considering whether it was the same as
MOrse's or nOt,) was publication upon his author
ity, in September, 1885, in which he stated that he
had built his line of telegraph from Munich to
| Bourgenhausen, distance of six miles, which had
been in operation without repairs for more than one
| year.
In regard to the principle of the combined circuit
| he was also satisfied that it was invented by him
| early in 1837-Davy's specifications of his inven-
ton not being enrolled earlier than January 1882
after the issue of Morse's French patent in which
the principle was disclosed. As to the alleged al
teraton in the specification in Morse's first patent
though alleged by defendant in his answer the evi-
dence failed to establish it and any question as to
the effect of such alteration did not therefore arise
and, if proved, he was not prepared to say that it
would VItiate the patent
As to the supposed effect of the patent issued in
France upon the patents subsequently, issued in this
country, none cou!d De perceived, unless the POSI-
ton cOntended for by the defendants counsel, that
the application for the patent in this country was
altered, and that it should take the date of the al
legged alterations, or, of the request of Morse, to
issue the patent on his return from Europe, could
be sustained. But if these positions could be sus-
tanned, the question would then arise, what would
be the effect upon the patent issued for IA years.
and whether its effect would not be only to limit the
operation of the patent to the period of IA years from
| the date of the French patent
As to the general claim in the main patent of
Morse he did not consider the objections of the de-
PENDANTS well grounded; and, even if it were too
broad it did not seem to him that the effect upon the
validity of the patent would be such as the counsel
| for defendant contended.
Other objections taken by defendants counsel to
the validity of the patents were noticed and each
| overruled.
Upon the question of Infringement, the Judge ex-
pressed himself as fully satisfied that the instru-