The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-11-12

This was ut least from two to three years before the
SeIrell machine was invented, taking the earliest
period claimed by the counsel for the plaintiff, say
to the early part the year 1876 If these witness
es are not mistaken in their description oil the ma
chine, and OF it's construction and working do not
see how the plaintiffs lSerrelps) machine can oe
distinguished from il. The machine Of Sgler was
originally constructed in 1913, under the snperiA-
tendence of Mr.. Howe, who operated il himself in
person down to the time he lett Mr. Sigler in 1915
IL was partially burned in the fall Of 1884, and then
REBUILT and put again into successful operation IL
these witnesses are to be credited, it not there
fore machine got up as an experiment, or for
mere trial. and then thrown away. On the contra.
ry it appears to have been constructed put in ope
ration, and worked successfully for two or three
years, Though it was finally given up when entirely
destroyed the second time by fire, Sigler thenbe.
gan to get his mouldings from his brother.
Now, this machine had knives or planes made In
the various forms which they were intended to cut
upon the wood: II had bevilled roller, and i was
q corrugated bevilled roller, which operated sue
cessfully in planning nouldngs; and if this descrp-
tion of the machine can be relied on, what is there
in it but the combination Of Serrelps patent, de-
scribed and claimed by the plaintiff? If these wit
nesses can be mistak en-if they have given q
colored account, or an unreliable account Of the
machine, then this branch of the case constitutes
no ground Of defence to the action but, If well
founded, if there is mistake (and that is for the
jury to determine as to the weight to be given
these witnesses,) it seems to me that there will be
great difficulty in distinguishing Serrels machine,
as different combination, from what ID to be found
In this one of Sgler
There is, also, the Arson machine We have an
account of that from Mr.. GchriSt and Mr.. Duryea.
Mr. Duryea states, that he saw = working machine
exhibited in Nibio's Garden, at tho Fair Of the
American Institute, between the years lS43 and
1915; that it was machine for making mouldings,
sashes, SO by combination of rotary cutters and
pressure roller. Mr. Gichrst also states, that in
1876 and lS47 he constructed a great many ma.
chimes Of this description, Chat is, the Arson
n ms IN.
Iinued' to cell them, until be was enjoined as in
frnging the Woodwork patent, in lS48, and was
thus compelled to abandon the business. He states
that they were machines embracing combination
of rotary cutters with pressure roliera that these
rollers were adjustable and could be taken off and
on at pleasure, and that they were in successful
operation from 1916 to lS4S This machine em-
braces Substantially the Same combination as that
Of Serrell and Siger aud stands on the same foot
ing E,o - n .. o,,.-u..,o,,1 .,,.u ).
you on the subject at issue between the parties.
Two of the jurors here put questions to tho learn
ed Judge, as to whether Serrel claimed patented
an Improvement on Wooiworth's machine.
The Court replied, that the claim in Mr.. Serrelps
patent is not for an improvement on the machine OF
Mr.. WOcoworth. His claim covers the principle in
volved in Woodworth's patent. He does not ex.
clude WoodwOrths combination, and then claim
specially for new mode of forming and adjust
ing the bevilled pressure roller. If he did, that
might be different question; but he does not put
bis claim on the form Of the feed roller, the bevlled
or serrated roller, nor upon the adjustment Of the
feeding roller. He does not put his claim either
of these, but he makes it cover the whole Of Wood
worth's combination If Wood w0rth's combination
is used and claimed by Serre his patent is void be-
cause material part Of it is the invention Of
ther
If he made an improvement on Woodworth's ma
chine in the feeding or pressure roller, he should
have limited his claim to the improvement only
But the difficulty is that it is not Limited to tina.
part Of the arrangement of the machine, but covers
the whole combination.
If you find for the plaintiff, the value Of damages
is the amount of profit he might make from ais
machine if the other machine had not been intro
duced. But in estimating the profits, the jury
should lcok with suspicion and care at the amount
estimated, as they may appear to be much larger
upon paper than in reality
The jury after receiving the above charge from
his honor, retired, and in about an hour returned
for further Instructions intimating that they did
then instructed them in writing to the folio wing
effect -
LIST If the jury believe that the Serrell machine
embraces the same combination IS that of Wood.
worth, then the plaintiff cannot recover.
I'd. If they believe that the Serrell machine doe
not embrace the combination of Wo0dworth and
that ne was the first inventor of his combination,
and that the defendants machine is substantially the
same as the plaintiff s, then the plaintiff is entitled
to recover. But they must find all these facts fol
the plaintiff, before they can find verdict tor him
nisapprehcIsion of the case, were unable to agree
and were accordingly discharged.
+. w StoUghton and M. G Harrington, Esquires
appeared counsel for the plaintiff, and William
Mootry and Charles NJ Keller, Esquires, as counss
for the defendants.