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

ns. Vu0ioE ekeo refcfrod 70 We ovSueo0o "a -
Keeb.rs. Mr. S'ocumb. Mr. Greene, and . nnak&s
Pratt.
In 1884. Mr.. Pxtt obtained bis Art patent, 81
tnat did not specify lead II contained tho oxide
lead, but not white load he found that tins 4
noe exactly answer, aud in 1896, he invented -
ccmposition Of the triple compound, and in prspsf.
tlons rot vsrying very essentially from those n.
isrred TO by Mr.. Goodyear In his patent. In I63G
he retained TO East Cambridge and whilst earn -
on Che estabushnent, no performed the operation 4
mixing the compound. Some Of the workmeu D..
ticipated in the act, and all Of them testify 4
manner tbnt seems to leave no possible question e
thor integrity and truthfu'ness II ia worthy sf
remark, That upon this branch Of the case, N
learned friends, the other side, have totally a.
stained from making anything like an astsms<
erdeayored TO break the foroe of the testimony, n
| regard to the curing of the triple compound, ~
asserting that Pratt could not have attained q cut
hcient degree OF heat, by stove or furnace 70 vul
canize rubber, there not effort made TO aaoa
him in reference to the carly use OF the triple osa-
pound
It appears to mo that this branch Of the csuss
might be rested upon this test;n,eny. Az illus
tration Of this, submit that If in 1874, whom NJ
Goodyear tsok out his patent, claiming TO DO IL
author OF the triple compound, he had filed his I'm
against Pratt for an injunction, or had brought
action at law charging hioi with Infringement; -
Eir. Pratt had then proved what these respectable
witnesses have proved In this case, there could Ask
haye been . doubt Of tho result He never couiG
have enforced a. against Pratt, his patent for The
triple compound
There is still another class Of witnesses, VIE
prove that the compound Of lead, sulphur. and rus
Der, was known and used prior to the time Of -
alleged invention thereof, by Goodyear. In 1884
and 1885, Mr.. Nathaniel Stoddald employed aheee
thee articles, in combination. with largely maau-
fectured fabrics ofrnbb~r. This fact 10 attested ~
him, and also by Mrs Stoddard, (hs wife, and ~
Mrs Whitney, who worked for him in 1885, End
who used the materials, and by Mr.. Chase, Wiz
IN ex not fact Ia II a y
Tileston These persons are, believe, Of concedsA
respectability. Mr. Stoddard, by various parts q
tho evidence. appears 10 have been employed ~
those interested on the other side; he had besa
their foreman and mschinist, and was 900 Of the
best operatives they ever employed He is free
from oil reproach, either PRIOR during, since.
his come cton with them.
! propose, now, to conclude this branch of the
investigation, by noticing the witnesses on the otAoe
side their Haywards, their Humphreys, aud Cat
lers, and will make up by them the public use Of ~
Of it by Goodyear; and if their evidence shall c0ae
up to what suppose WILL uninterrupted chain Il
testimony will have been adduced, Of which the g.
tive partizans of the plaintiff will constitute part.
Mr.. Cutting then proceeded to examine the d.
positions of Humphrey and others-he thon Pre-
ceeded.
The next witness that shall invoke, and draw
forth to testify against himself and his coadjutoss
and associates, and prevent his getting the avag
of this action, is Mr.. Nathaniel Hayward himself.
He has had tho good fortune to have accumulste1s
out of this matter, large fortune; he is nov he
owner Of one-fourth Of the Hayward Rubber Con-
paDy, which alono has a cash capital of $50 600.
He is one Of tho contributors of the 10 per csat
fund, withdrawn from the whole amount e
tariffs paid upon the articles manufactured e
and placed IN 'ns 81
of meeting the expenses of this controversy, aA1
for conducting to tho neral success owners q
this patent, and by means of which very powesfsl
and extremely well organized and disciplined band
carry on this ltigation> Such being the position Of
Hayward he Of AL is most interested in not dis
closing the prior Of this compound. Conccssisns
coming from him and against his present, interest,".
are entitled to controlling influence In the socsa&
volume ofplaintif's printing page 723, in answer -
ninety fouth question, Hay ward was asked "Plcaso
state moro fully" Sc. Mr. Cutting here went int
an examination Of the evidence.
That, il the Court please, is the thing itself =
you lock Mt Haywards patent, you viii lind TIE
proportion Of sulphur to that quantity OF rub
Der, dissolved substantially in the same way, with
about the like proportion OF white lead. This, sHs
was in 1926.
(Tbe Court" And patented in 1880 ~
No, sir, the triple compound itself was not -
tented until 1914, and tho identical compound waA
used in 1886 II is the ycIitable thing, the genuine
article.
Exhibit G, ut the end of Hayward's examination.
volume ?, plaintiffs printing. page 1885, is u more
fnland accurate disclosure by Haywaid under oath.
Ct The same fact.
This affidavit was sworn to on the 9th of Moves.
Der, 1914, date when his memory was moro aoca-
rate than when examined IN 1SJD.
Dir. Cutler another witness on tho part Of the
plaintiff associate Of Mr.. Goodyear and coatEi-
tuor OF the fund in question, tesiGes to substaa-
italy the same thing plaintiffs printing, vol. 2.
page C6l, question Isl
the same proposition, is Mr. Stone, an extremely
jealous and partial witness. plaintiffs first vel.
Isgo SO. exhibit Al
tho very compound set forth in Goodyear's pateRt,
VIZ in actual public use by Hayward as early a
1910.
Mr.. William Beers of Woburn, substantially re-
iteIates the same facts.
have now terminated this very tedious and nm
interesting examination Of evidence, far it Ia
applicable to the triple compound and cannot ro-
sist the conclusion tEnt whether yon consider the
Jespectabiliy of the Witnesses the manner in which
they are supported the defniteness and precision
with which they have spoken the numerous cross
examinations which ut long intervals they have
wthstood that we have established upon this branch
Of tho case most perfect defence and if there
anything left in doubt by our witnesses when have
entered the camp of the enemy, and have invoked
their leading Witnesses and they have distinctly and
positively tettifed to like facts, may not conclude
that this part ofour defence is entirely mprcgnable
The next proposition Is, that the proportions Of
rubber aud sulphur assuming for Arguments sake
that Mr.. Goodyear's patent is in other respects
valid), described by Goodyear, arc not suscepti
bic OF any practical useful result; that the pro-
uet is OF utility, and that in point of fact none
Of tho manufacturers employ the process, or COM
pound, described by Goodyear IN the patent.
His specification in describing the process by
which this composition Of matter is to DO made,
is so detective that the article cannot be rnanufac-
tutd BY following any Of the directions to be found
in the patent. By adopting his proportions, an
article Of 70 utility whatever would be the result.
In fact, tho process and the composition described
by him, have long since been abandoned, and have
given way to other modes Of mixing tho rubber.
This proposition is supported by witnesses, whose
ranes ] viii simply lneDlon. In tbi, respect. both
patents are alikc-tbe patent Of lsio as fsr as it
covers the patent of lsti, j. identical with it.
The witnesses ! now aludc 70 are, Mr.. Gilbert,
Mr. MoCufdy, Mr.. jackson en- extremely inte'ii-
gent witness, examined by the pls.ntifs), Mr.. Mix
cine foreman of .be Newark Mdia Rubber Com
ra-y), Mr.. A. S. Warner, and Dir. Solomon G..
Waiuer.
These Witnesses, with m abstract of the essen-
ial part o! heir testimony, will be printed on tha
bricf which Che Court win receive at our hands.
Tie rcyt, and, perhaps, in yarious aspects tho
most important question Of fact existing in the
.L-l -L.icL n s--o.l ~. rolcl 70