The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-11-18
LOCAL MATTERS.

against Mr.. Burke for damages Sustained In con
sequence Of the refusai:by the Commissioner to fur
nish plaintiff with certain copies of certain pat
cnts then on file in the Patent Office. The FOLLOW
ing is the plaintiffs declaration:
DisTRIcT OF COLUMBIA, Washington county, 10 tDit:
| Edmund Burke attached to answer unto
| Uriah A. Boyden in plea OF ttespass on the case
And wherenpon the seid plaintiff, by Bradley and
Laskeyb his attorneys complains for that whereas
heretofore, to wit, the goth day Of January I645
| at the county aforesaid the said defendant then
| and there being Commissioner of the Patent Office
| OF the United States, and as such Commissioner
having the control and custody Of the records of
the patents drawings, and specifications OF patents
heretofore granted from time to time by the Uni.
ted States to divers persons, and being, as such
Commissioner, bound by law 10 grant to applicants
| therefor, on the payment of certain fces provided
by law, copies OF such patents drawings, and ape-
cications as such applicant might desire TO have,
the said plaintiff in fact says he did, on the Goth
day of january, lS4S, at the county Aforesaid, ap
| ply to the said Edmund Burke, Commissioners as
Aforesaid, for copies of patents of Gorge w. Hen
derson and John e. Gaylord, dated April IA, 1890;
also OF Charles kenze, dated July /, 1886, also Of
| j. X. MILAN, dated 9th May, 1886 which said pa
tents had been heretofore granted by the said Uni
ted StateS to the said George w. Henderson and
John h. Gaylord, Charles Kenzie aud j. K. MILAN
| respectively, and copies of which, together with
| the drawings specifications, and claims thereof,
were then and there file and of record in the said
Patent Office, and subject to the custody ami cen
|
to said defendant the customary and legal fees
which said defendant entitled for said copies;
and the said defendant did then and there wilfully,
ialciously, and corruptly and by color of his sad
office, and with intent to injure the said plaintiff
thereby, refuse to give the said copies to, and to
cause said copies to be made for, and given to the
said plaintiff TO the damage of the plaintiff in
the sum OF ten thousand dollars; and therefore he
sues. BRADLEY & LASKEY, for plaintiff.
| Mr.. Laskcy opened the case for the plaintiff.
lie stated the circumstances OF the case as they are
| set forth IN the declaration. Mr.. BoydeD, the
plaintiff, civil engineer III tie city of Boston,
and carried on an extensive business In 1877 S
he was engaged upon an invention making great
improvement in water wheels of description
Known as Turbines that the copies called for were
OF patents relating to that particular subject of in
vention, and were necessary Tor him In the adj
vancement and completion of his contemplated
improvement. Mr. Burke refused, maliciously,
wantonly, and corruptly, to furnish the Copies
though The tender of fees made, and the rcqui-
stiles of the law complied with In consequence of
| this refusal, and the inability of Mr. B0yden TO
obtain these copies, his business suffered consider
| able injury. For this wanton abuso of power, and
malicious Disregard Of law, the plaintiff brought
| this action; and they would call upon the jury to
| award the plaintiff exemplary damages, TO which
| he was clearly entitled.
The fourth section of the act of Congress entitled
can act TO promote the progress of useful arts, and
to repeal all acts and parts of acts heretofore made
| for that purpose" approved July a, 1896, being
the law under which the suit Is brought, is as fol-
| lows;
section A. And be IL further eaaotcd That the sad
| Commissioner shall cause zeal to be made and
provided for the sad office, with such device the
President of the United States shall approves and
copies of any records, books, papers, drawings
belonging to the said office under the signature OF
the said Commiseioner or, when the office shall be
vacant und der the signature OF the chief clerk, with
the said seal affixed, shall be competent evidence
in all cases in which the original records, books,
| papers, or drawings could be evidence And any
| person making application therefor may have
4 o. win IN ath pr
| pers deposited in said office, on paying for the
written copies the sum of ten cents for every page
| of one hundred words, and for copies of drawings
the reasonable expense for making the same.
| Mr.. Carlisle opened the case for the defendant.
| The defence was, that Mr.. Burke, while Commits
| sioner of Patents, had acted just any other man
having the least respect for his office for his
| Government would have acted The plaintiff had
/ approached the Department in series of letters
and communications containing the most insult
| ing and offensive remarks towards the Commits
stoner IN his official capacity and during which
application was made for certain copies. The
| Commissioner, acting as any other man would have
done, required that the plaintiff before having
business done with the office. should address it in
| terms, at least, of common decency The Com
missioner thought it due to the office he held to
the respect which every branch of the Government
is entitled, to do no business with any through
his office who treated it with contempt, and in a
manner altogether too indecent and dsrespectful
| TO be borne with, and which, if allowed, would
bring every Department of the Government into
|
brought suit and it would be for the jury to
say how far the plaintiff had right to place
himself in such a position that the public OH
| Ger is compelled, out OF respect for his depart
ment, to refuse to transact business with him, and
then bring suit because of the refusal occasioned
by his own indecent and insulting conduct. II he
had right to do this, and because of the refusal
TO give him certain papers under these circum-
stances, was entitled 10 damages, then 1t would be
for the jury to determine the amount of these dam
ages He expected to show as the case progressed,
from the epistoary expressions of the plaintiff,
that he had been treated properly and in the only
manner he deserved, by Mr.. Burke
Charles Cook, s,oorn-Have known Uriah A. Boy
den since early in 1916; he resides in Boston, Mas
| sochusetts. knew him in January, lS4S.
| Question.-What Mr.. Boyden's business
| and occupa ton at that time?
| Mr.. Carlisle objected TO the question.
Mr. Bradley stated the object of the question was
| TO show that MIR. Boyden engaged in busl-
ness in which it was necessary and proper for him
| to have copies of the patents refused.
| Mr. Carlisle objected to the question The act
of Congress gave MIR. Boyden no peremptory right
| to demand and receive copies of patents, sc. The
| law confined that right TO parties intending to use
those copies as evidence in cases where the origi
mails would be evidence. The whole section must
| be taken in connection The declaration does not
| set forth they wanted for any such purpose.
| If the law gave him such right then his dam
| age special, and such must be declared
upon. The declaration sets forth no special dam
age, but is general, and therefore no evidence of
| any special damage is admissible. Cited Chitty's
Pleading 1893, 3s7.
MIR. Bradley replied. 1t is general rule that a
| man doing certain act is responsible fer all the
consequences ofthat act; and the question is, must
all the consequences be spread out on the record.
The questions presented by this arc: Had
Boyden right to demand these copies? Were the
copies refused? and, if that refusal was from n
corrupt and malicious purpose the plaintiff is en-
titled to exemplary damages, and the whole sub
ject of the plaintiffs business and occupation is
proper to be given in evidence.
| maintained allowing Codes
patents, &C., to be furnished, did not conlinc the
privilege Of copies 10 the sole purpose of being used
in evidence in COURTS but the law was intended to
enable an inventor TO obtain copies OF prior inyen-
tons, patents, &C. on file i'll the Office, in order
that be might avoid interference with the patent
rights of others And a refuaal TO furnish is action
| able. The law docs not allow n discretion in the
| Commissioner to furnish refuse the copies. If
the Commissioner in refusing acts in good faith,
then the plaintiff can only recover actual dana gcs;
but if the officer acts maliciously and corrupty,
then he is entitled TO exemplary damages. Evi
denco Of the position, business, and occupation OF
plaintiff is necessary and proper to show the cor