New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-09-18
NETWORK DAILY TRIBUNE SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER IS,

M Nah iEto the Of brought ne s.s Of rs5-r
n.,sa,e He .he We ne piece b. Re S.s cured
ss,si rom as,. VOC hi 1.ssS 70 b eur-j By sah
yns 49, ne s ~ me the time eeg;sr than
lh Whebsr N. Goodyear and Nash .po..s 10
you GOODBYE" ssnisd thi IN. s'eo'ery Sash Gooa
Nss - en- gloJ n as near a. rsconect tine
.cover b,t nsd bsr Goody-ar oesa,e ss.s
b, empsy Az. mean that be Claimed gro Ind
Ill Dd Gooty,ar at that hsn and there claim tAa, b.
6,ocysr ~ hri d. overef Of ,he heated ACIDS Eds9saisn,
tos,,d 20 By saluas eoansel, eozir.dtory prcOs,
An. Il. elaej the ground thA Nah va a Ia employ
ina Nh-,h-r or no IN peviou, ther.,o
irs sash shout hs isius og patent o' such heat
Me- OF rubbet h had cured scis
ibrs Panins his discovery Goodyear ~a' not present AZ
no In.au 10 ash you whether anything sad about p,,-u
~ hen her siersnee Az. tn. ts,rsscs se,~s.a the
pa- -hch they d submit to ast wished ne 70 settle, vas
10 Do yoa Nhh en,lel out he p,;es
viaii What uas-rstood BY whehe' Mr. Nash vas
IN What OF goods ara The, cured, Did Goodyear
goods ard them III ho; seids seoerai thins
lIs bd be Pu hese Food' nie make aaa e t,l o. "a.
h mercy ''Feru ents - see What le eoui An' ihey
We IN t- 1sr.e she 'old ~ me ma,ss' sos 81 thsri
HaTo~s Testimony, tvOi 4, defe dsnts pnnuog, page
| sj1l BewH witrsss exsmioed by the p'sidth
The patent claims that Goodyear, before 1874, VS.
the discov,Ter o. the mssns q curns rubber ey neat
whether BY atmospheric heat or BY billing 10 hot water or
!
The evidence es.athss that respecs tbs caring in
boif water In boiling scics the discovery made BY
hr Nash, and that he communicated It to Goodyear. 10
areT this communi:atoa that Goodyear described h'
ion Be process curing the gods ac'ose vessel
/ by applying st0,osoheiie heat $500
should pretend. IN 1912 TO mUohl The mystery = unFav
oe0 hen the facts disclosed that he has sold out MS
II abs. Ia sps ulsto no hin coyensnt 20
surrender his enigma patent snd to sPply o' pew one II
should wise he had r-ma u-d perfectly SAWS
fec she 10 of July. S+8 he knew what his I'M
proSemelt He had d@clit ed eN,-lo e. when In
do hy Dr Jones. H had o2el " air'tted that
be was ueher pa enee OF the apphcalon oi a nor OF
boiling oios h. claimed merely The process OF heating Ia
But al this P-od be had s1d oat MS uht', aad
Is htse men DO require 1at e should 'nai No patent
"unr The ssyice Of counsel Tie shortly acr surrender
e. II In sihsn one ye-r from the cate Ct his agreement
~n them poce dng hsd been Commenced ~ ths tNent
Office for better snd more extensive monopoly II 8D
II wes aeon psh'o nomlhey ~ 90 dYes Oat 10 TACT oy
oh~is vnEsn ~ TIE Gus nes oi f9ooer Who
elevated pOint hifh enough %
AID protect the who'll 81 India ruobsr manus tls
fibe cont s'st C. VII oe ut'.ty Asloe ur.
aosf Dta DDg NJ 10 make ely Improvement
without interfering with the cl'us set up; Il 10
psen when az ouce ana completely ocslp,s the wnols
ground aud rTeveps all improvement Tn, - great and
nsye question for the community. ADMIT that the real
kot Ot ingenuity and n,elg sncs
ought To be protected and cherished ard cursed BY eou OF
usi-s Trey hcf efec ot -ukrd but 81 the same
time u N vain "a DENY that the Statute "hich auhes
the tur~Lder and # patents vsrv wide door
frsuds sn th-t hen there Is papab, derencs BE-
tween TIE Dev end The old patent snc uPcn tvessatn
the sexual Invention IVES only % limited exteat
n less then that covered BY the gyued patent IL
90 tstsuch grant Obtained Ia ia by pArIe~
not Of WI om prrtelos TO ay merit as 'reE bT
speculate Inerely by fas5
syn pahy cgtad " eminent counsel ia ayor OF s Good
ylar, 10 BE- ctt Il med or un.tna1Ctd
Eor thtse rosors ePeetfulY submit hist this gae-tot
1874. 10 utterly v ID
rave row rem.rk to 81 axe upor Their pout There
swsu ot proper parties II this case This son arises
tom The ei e. II EXHIBIT which is linen II fla 9TH
tr asisI merits have been made ~ Mr. Oiy q
cher branches Of the Uauuectue or India rto3er 70
Va ouspsts Il is c0Lttuded tho other eide Tia. t
ifs1ul ana did .srdtr ne gar-
ties 20 them Incompetent Hi.nefes rucl !95 DID ny
y sk M. H. 10 e. m " us-s % tie II sld TIN. fl AID
b.
he be oil calls Nj Day 10 aD 9ceoHA r hsy ng Ia
urtp tra conlliusrts right, by tho mluiactlrs
AID q VAN iUs ether articles, ald pays
tibet be may be compelled 80 paw the p1bs ~ be INN 10
CHARLIE Co dreeT II appcars that b7io tho commence
Heu Of this suit Mr. Cody sod and assigned iOotnet
pr ies The exclusive ht io mai ua,tuie chess Ae ad
that all dsm' tha cen b. ecoreied n ay al log
to noe III sud not 90 Mr. GOodysafi cous,qu.nty hshroJ
entities snt.iu mi, suit This ae ot fscs pres'n'a
ou,ain thst learned uds ~ hups vii have no di
or deu which he HIS absou'e aasuet % aaother,
NATHAN sctou In Ceurt Of .hencry IA Bis owhnamh
he haoiug beneficial utIcit Ia tho result Of tho acton
not be atrusfee ~ virtue Of any tustl Can such b
ssthst be- II all tsinsol
Mr.. BRADY here inqui ed if tho assign
cescoudsue.
Mr.. Cutting replied-M objection il,
that Mr. y.sr cam OF msiusn this sctan. WI never
TIE other "a ties sue vii thtr consider "hcef thsy cAn
Artsin The action Ths question Is not whether they
but whether CnsTrs Goodyear has the iiflt tJSue tl
Cutiius here e-c the assignments ana commenced up'n
th,m Now S0's not S, 10 sso me , suit is
hi. expense The purchasers as'eo 70 indemnify hin
oocy-sris not to sxpeDce q Ibis What
ever It may admit that az common ~ an action must
be brought In the Of the assigno but IN Cou's Oh
Chsnosy ha parry hentfcisily iatert5fe6 sone
IN, htu have led by the parties ia aterest
Ny spm' nt then H. that tns Is Dill by Ooodyoar ay.
IL for osn ages against Day for manufacturing ios aud
shoes thai nght IN truth does DOT belong to Good
yt because be has basansd and sold It to he Patss
Tor sIpOO anc other nsideraons that tho whos ssss
o. belong 10 them and no pant OF Il 10 u oiyea
therefore resp, ctfy insist tht the bill must be dis
missed TIE tue party be BE- fore the Court and not
WHO his meme "a the re actors who ar" sePt be-
hind The smstte OF cacu aou en for elect lt
Il sad Lat th's 'esnica oJo;non IL II " 10 "oAo
euii,e0 ugs where our opponents aroby eye
~ sicrAvOfing 20 avoid tria oy uTy 10 which
uibur al they Will be competed TO appeal II s p' Dc aus
missed any tsuss ~ II al Gjupocon be 6eoled TO"
enter upon more painful aud Is'on0us discus
Of the eyd' nee applicable to tho vaou alleged oVen
tious Il Goodyear.
The pr % sion connected with this enormous ma's
q mater that tho pateat Issued 10 Chiss Joodye oI
all~,.d IA yvbon OF Nathaniel haywtld Ir com6nios
sulphur lndi. rubber dated the @ith February 1872 -
u and VOID becsGse Nathaniel Hay @ad was not the lt
inventor VI nat congestion or comp und. a.,
THIS Is commonly known IS The sulphur feient *
WA Issued upob al red discovery OF dsy"hd ana ~"
token 1859. TIr inst witness hat rel 70 on s
branch Of the case Mr. Nathane S.otdaId ne was sn'
ssged IN uacIuTe OF rubber In lSo aod tS'ti hseA
eued ia y Ia using rubber, dissolved In spirits OF
trpenDe 18th phae q ion aud roll sulphur Ia eOnpo'
= ion snd made rubber c.th in 1884 Of rabOer dissolved ia
sIiits Of urpsntne AID sulphur THIS Was a. hoIouy,
ts,s he left hoxbuy alter whils aLd went % Lynn,
where be Tuboer cloth for hs Lynn PnnnnS
Coinpar rubber and sulphur in The opoton' o. os
Of sulphur 10 ~ or 80 s OF rubber, ols'o en III "
turbene Some Of tho cloth MANUFACTURED oy nir sod
sId a, used TO cushions snd made into lie pre-
sryeIs .gg ans various othe[auclrs aad we're sen. 20
store a. Boston belongings TO this Company where tue
manufactured al cl,s publicly exposed of sale, ana
sold This cloth f crab col and WAS Known anu
cold IN ls5 refer the Court for the purpose OF sho vns
gsD.r. accuracy ofsba prop'siuon In regard 10 M
SIoodud vol defendants prioii0g page 10 10 l5L
so J. fer 10 evidence of Mr VIM Lowell VINO one
Go,dvess witnesse sod much insr-s ed Tor the PLAIN
IN 10 feei Nh Lowell says-tyol paiGah pn9uns,
psg, 1881 Here the Co,nss resd his testimony also
eie 10 Nrs sodds d. the wife Of Mr st 'dosTd yol DE-
endauts yrntnR page 1857 from which the Counsel read
Judge GRIER-rhe lady in New
Hampshire tbouIh the contrary.
Dir. CUrr,nG-Yes. sir; doctors disa-
gree sId don't know why Aies should BOT The next
witLes, Caroline Whitney Vol detsDd,nts pr atios q,
Tae f questions or The Counsel read her testimo-
ny Th, wines alone made about thdy yafcs herself
Of this cloth. =.
TIE neat witneis is Thomas Chase Vol defendant
prrtiB, psgs 81 lie the bOokkeeper sad saies nan
- CO... h nInra