The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-09-11

does not that make nominal plaintif sf Charles
Goodyear? He Is not 70 pay costs I; this sni
is not at his expense the purchasers agree
to indemnify him against all lots; they take
tho litigation upon themselves; Goodyesr is not ia
have one nxpense Of tbs recovery, whatever it may
be- admit that at common Law an action must be
brought in the name Of the sssignor, but In Court
@CnsnceTy the party b.neaosily interested alone
parties In Interest. Ny argument, then, is, that
this 10 bill by Goodyear, praying for damages
against Day for manufacturing boots and shoes; that
that right, In truth, does not belong to Goodyear
because he has bargained aud sold it TO other par
fies for $4,000, and other cocsderatons-that the
whole avails Of this suit belongs TO them and no
part of to Goodyear; therefore respectfully in-
sist that the bill must be dismissed The true party
nust be before the Court. and rot who lends his
name to the real actors, who are kept behind the
scenes as . matter Of calculation, and for effect.
1t is said that this is technical objection. lift
were So We are entitled 20 urge it in case where
our opponents are by every means endeavouring to
avoid trial BY jury, and to which tribunal they
will DO compelled to appeal, If this bill be dismissed
Tor any cause, or 1t an injunction be denied !
now enter upon very painful and labori0us task
the discussion of the evidence, applicable to the
various alleged inventions Of Goodyear.
The frst proposition connected with this enormous
mas Of matter u.s. that the patent issued to Charles
Goodyear for an alleged Invention of Nathaniel
Hayward, for combining sulphur with India rubber,
dated the Gath February 1889 is null and void, be-
cause Nathaniel Hayward was not the 6rst inventor
OF That composition or compound
This is commonly known az 8 The Sulphur Pa
tent" and was issued upon alleged discovery Of
hayward, and was taken out ia 1899. The first wit
cess that re fer to, ON this branch Of the case is
Mr.. Nathaniel Stoddard. He was engaged in the
manufacture Of rubber in 1888 aud 1884; he expert
mented largely il using rubber, dissolved in
spirits Of turpentine, with sulphato of iron and
roll sulphur, in composition, and made rub
Der cloth in 1884 Of rubber dissolved in spirits
of turpentine and sulphur. This was at Rox-
bury, Mass. He left Roxbury after while,
and went to Lynn, where he mapifactured rubber
cloth for the Lynn Printing Company, Of rubber
and sulphur, In the proportions of lbs Of suphuc
70 ~ or 30 lbs. of rubber dissolved in spirits OF
turpe ntiae. some of the cloth manufactured by
Mr.. Stodda-d was used to cover hair cushions, and
made into life preseryers, leggings, and various
other articles, and were sent TO a store in Boston
belonging to this company, where the manufactured
articles were publicly exposed for sale, and sold
This cloth was Of a drab color. and was known and
sold in 1885. refer the Court, for the purpose of
showing tho general accuracy of that proposition in
printing, page 1853 to 164 I also refer to tho evil
dence Of Mr.. VIM. S. Lowell who is one Of Good
years witnesses, and much interestei for the plain
tits in feeling; Mr. Lowell says-(vol. plaintiff s
printing. page 339 } Here the Counsel read his
testimony also refer to Mrs stoddard the wife
Of Nh. Stoddard, (vol defendants printing, page
l6S, from which the Counsel read.
Judge GRIER-The lady in New Hampshire
Mr.; CvrrlNa-Yes, sir; doctors disagree, and
I don't know why ladies should not. The next
witness is Caroline Whitney. (vol. l. defendants
printing, page l65, questions 4. or 40 The couu-
sel read her testimony. This witness alone made
up about thirty yards herself OF this cloth.
The next witness is Thos. l.. Chase. (vol. de-
fendant's printing page 81 He was the book keeper
and salesman Of the Lynn Printing Company; he
eoEroborates Mr.. Stoddard, and says-(the counsel
here read his statement)
The next witness is Mr. H. Tileston, who, how
ever, proves simply that ssoddard was working. at
that time for the Lynn Printing Company, and that
they had store for the sale of their goods in 1885,
lvol. !, page IT'D He also read the testimony Of
10 also read the testimony Of Nj Fox, vol de-
testimony Of Mr. weiiiogton, (vol. / Defendants
printing, page lS6, top Of page) This witness was
purchaser itom 1884 to 1885, Of this article Of sui
phured goods.
Now, besides those witnesses who thus prove the
combination Of rubber with sulphur as early as
1854 and 1885, making it into manufactured ar
ticles putting them on sale, exposing them to the
public eye, making them an article Of sale and pro-
ut. also refer the Court 30 the evidence of Mr.
Skinner, who speaks in reference to Mr. Days early
employment.
Many sEeers and sarcasms have been visited upon
him for having testified that Mr.. Day had SO early
used sulphur In combination with rubber, and tn ,
idea thrown cut that the thing was Incredible he
cause Mr.. Day was then but fourteen years old. Ie
was for that that have taken some trouble to
show tnst II is Of y ya anS sher erwin
publicly exposed for sale and found profitable. Mr.
Skinner is remarkably eoroborated in this respecs
by one Of the most respectable gentlemen residing
in New York, to whose testimony shall soon refer.
In regard to Skinner, his testimony appears in 4th
volume defendants printing, page 37, questions 7,
=, 10, II, and So.
Mr.. Skinner is a respectable man; the proof of
that is extremely distinct his place Of residence is
given; he is known by numbers of persons within
reach. No attempt is made to impe lch this gen.
teman. But what is the point upon which they
seek to disparage the evidence of Mr.. Skinner
Why 1t is under remark that Mr.. Day had dissolved
his rubber by the use of alcohol and that it is said,
stamps the whole of his evidence as false, because
alcohol would have directly reverse effect. Now,
what he that subject simply this, (reads
But let me corrobor,te this witness in that re-
spect by witness of the plaintiff, and brother. in
law of party interested in these agreements. and
who testi6es TO like use Of alcohol by the Presi-
dent Of Newark Rubber Company. at this same pc
riod of time. This witness proves that Mr.. Hutch
inson was there in partnershr with Mr. Day, and
they about that time using alcohol for dssolving
rubber This witness is q salesman in the Newark
Company In the outset Of his examination he was
asked what solvent was used in 1882! Answer:-
"Turpentine and alcohol"
= BY whom then was alcohol also used as solvent
BY Hutchinson, the President of this Company and
to slay witness, because ho said Mr.. Day had used
alcohol az q solvent, at the same time Hutchinson
was employing it in his establishment
Mr., BRADY--If the Court please, it would be very
ksOMo 3oI uh 10 interrupt inc COUNSEL III any OIL NE
statements On points Of fact. and therefore, where
we do not thus interrupt him. we nope the Couct
will not understand as asserting to any PROPOSE
tion or statement he nav make, but desire to make
one correction here He hos not stated my argu-
ment about this witness. stated in reference to
this matter, that the witness expressly syore that
Mr. Day adopted the use Of alcohol and gave up tur
pentine as solvent.
Mr.. CCTTING--I do not wish to DO exempt
from interruption We are here discuss this case,
and bring to the Court all CBe liehs upon it we
interruption end correction will not hinder, but will
aid that
L now refer the Court TO tho evidence of p s.
Van Stouten, (yo. !, defenials's printing, page
2s5 questions II, II, and Id
have also very long lis OF witnesses, showing
the use OF sulphur. ny great number OF other par
ties but, according to my understanding, they rsfer
20 the use of su phur in combination with Lead an
therefore this evidence ~ more properly applicable
TO another branch Of this discussion; because, &C
cording to my understanding OK it, patent for sui
pbur aud rubber alone is different from and far more
nh. opIl an1