The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-10-16

lemAAspiS men OF ibis age 10 written his name
CLIENT and tr ust that the CENT? man is answered
In the whole course of my little practice, have
never heard cause argued where little attention
was paid to the pleadiDgs and proofs and where 50
great latitude was taken in treating the issues
raised, supposed to be raj ed, in this cause
hope to recall your honor's attention to the real
questions presented by the bill and answer They
are these:-Fhst. is Col Colt the first and original
inventor Of the improvement by him patented
Second Ishis patent well extended Third Did he
recover verdict, judgment, aud injunction against
the massachusetts, Arus Co on that patent These
issues are all raised by the peadings after some
fashion, although the answer is certainly q very
confused specimen OF pleading, and eontradiets itself
in many important particulars, which Will take oc-
casiOn to point out here
In the first place, the answer denies Infringement
in express terms H. says that the defendants have
not made any arms similar 70 those claimed by
the complainant (maIk ne-language) before Feb %,
lS50-the expiration Of the or gina torn--nor, Saa
they believe, afterwards They swear, to the best
of their knowledge and belef-iike Irish witness
in the Sessions Court-that they do not make arms
similar to those ''caimed" by the complainant.
They are not content to deny the Infringement Of
his patent in general terms, but they circum-
stantial in that denial; they 90 not infringe what
he 6 claims' in his patent. Now, turn to toe con-
clusion of their and see how they contradict
the denial There they admit that, since 1850,
they have been making arms with rotary
cbambered breecb,' &c quoting the very words
ofthe claimer Of tho patent-and concluding by say
ing that they understand this to be the first claim
Of PLAINTIFF patent, but themselves by aver
ring that the patent is invalid. Winch allegation
is true? Both cannot be- Did the craftsman of the
answer forget, when he reached the conclusion,
where he undertakes to reply TO the interrogatores
Of the bill, that he had in the former part, denied
what he there admits do these defeniauts swear
to anything that is laid before them! take the
admission Of the answer as conclusive on the in
fringement, which indeed is apparent from inspec-
ton of the arms themselves.
The next denial in the answer which meets . full
contradiction by the case presented by the defend
ants Themselves, is the denial that there was any
report on Mr.. Colts application for extension by an
examiner of the Patent Office, under the law of
1913, g or otherwise Turning to the record PRO-
duced here by the defendants themselves, it ap-
pears that there such report made an
terror to the passage of the law Of 1S45, which
report was made in compliance with rule Of tho
Office, and according to the uniform custom there;
for it would have been obviously improper to grant
an extension of patent which the Commissioner
supposed to have been originally improperly grant
edso that every application for extension subjected
the patent to the scrutiny it would have
undergone had it been originally applied for; and
the law Of 1913 was rather declarat0ry than drec-
tory of that custom. Had the defendants been con-
tent to answer, and say that there was no report
under the law Of 1913, it would have been no moro
than s'palteripg in double senses but when they
say that there such report der that la. or
otherwise" they have mos wfully misrepresented
the tuth and this TOO, with the record before their
eyes, and after argument in Court uoon the effect
of that very report, between Mr. Staples and myself
made before that answer
The next denial in their answer, is expressly con-
tradieted by the record produced here. They cay,
in relation to the suit instituted in Washington
against them, ana on which an Injunction is now
outstanding, that 'no subpoena, prscsss, notice
was ever served these defendants, their agent
attorney, or either Of them, Sc" Nov this is q
very distinct denial Of notice, either TO themselves
or their agent and yet when your Lonors turn
to the record, il shows that their agen., James
Warner, was served with subpoena, and ms actually
answered the bill, and that they themselves were
Avufft %1a she ~rhx, Oh
ment should rot issue. Here is matter not Of
speculation probability, but matter Of fact,
hibited by the record, and impossible to be contro
verified. How, then. do the defen iants stand up
in the face Of day with such recorded oath against
them!
The next curious piece of swearing in this answer
is, that "many OF The gpDsmlths, and manufacturers
Of FIRE in the Uaited States, have for the last
fifteen twenty years used and sold Ere arms hay
ing all the inventions and improvements claimed BY
said Colt This is met in the bill, by the state
ment Of what sort of arms those wers and it is
admitted by the amended answer that this refers to
the arms made by Blunt & Ssms and others, having
a combination Of barrels. and known ia California
as"pepper boxes" which, although they undoubt-
edy infringe some OF Me- Colts claims, axe entirely
unlike his arms in other respects Now, compare
this oath with their denial Of their own infringe
ment before referred TO by me. when they say that
they "never made, used, or sold any IRE with
any such improvements as those claimed by said
patentee in bis said patent before the 18th day Of
February 1850, nor, they believe, afterwards
That is to say, Blunt Symss pistols with o COM
bination Of barrels selfcocking and unlocked, are
just like Colts arms. with ono barre, and rotary
breech /; but their arms are unlike his, although
they have one barrel and rotatory hreech, and al
though they unlock rotate and rel0ck, juea like his.
Can it be true that this is really sworn to?
But turning away from this sckening dissection
Of corrupt answer, address myself 80 the argu.
menis Of the counsel for the defendants As un-
derstand this case, the whole argument OF counsel
has been based on failacy, which is apparent tho
moment you look into the patent itself Gentlemen
have contended that this patent is for ths abstract
principle of rotating the brsech Of repeating fire
arm; and upon that theory they have sTgned that
if any gun can be shown to have existed anterior
to this, in which the brecch did rotate, then the
patent 10 invalid. ii Hss rather amusing TO hear
counsel glide over that part Of tho clsiu which
expressly excludes any slch construction as this,
and throw the whole emphasis OF their voice that
part which, if taken alone, would bear sach con-
structon, When counsel came to the governing
clause of the claim, he seemed to have cold OF
a feeble voice, and very quickly mumbied over it
but when he reached the descriptive part. his voice
very firm ana his articulation Distinct. /
shall, therefore, hsyo to ask your honor to open
the patent again
You will perceive that there is description in
this schedule. OF an arm in which the reciprocatng
motion Of the cock is converted into rotary motion
of the cylinder, by means Of ratchet 50 that
when the gun ia cecked the cylinder must be driven
round, or something must break; the connection
between the cock and the cJ lindeT IS rigid, and
the motion positive. You will also observe that
the bolt which locks tho cylinder ir its proper posi-
ton is 50 constructed and. arranged that rs you
lift the hammer, cock, it is withdrawn from the
hole in the cylinder by which it fastens it in its
position. and 20 permits the cylinder to rotate,
and then is released and driven back az ain for the
purpose of rclockng he cylinder at its next resting
place. This is positive iock--not o friction roller
or other uncertain deteot-but lock which holds
the cylinder that il cannot DO moved unless
something is first broken, except at the will
OF the operator. On the first Of these arrange
pents, the patentec Pounds his first claim, which
your honora will Rad in these word. -" First
combining rotating chambered brcech with tho
lock, in manner SUBSTANTIALLY as herein described"
not in any manner, your honors, but snch, or
such like manner as described; and these control,
liz words counsel l,ft out very easily-"so that by
the operation Of lifting the hammer 60 cock tho
lock, the said breech shall be rotated, &c" The
questions Of priority ard Infringement are an