The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-05-19

Let the reader follow dc
reported by the combinati
alteration will appear in
ever doubted the origiHali
vention /; but Goodyear's
is quite a different thing.
Ucbster's Exact U1ords.
" So that the only ques-
ton comes to be this: is
'49 a true description Of
the original invention. If
it be, there is an end of
the inquiry"
NoTE--The simple wor,
point in this case.
AGAIN.
:" say the conviction
is growing very much
greater In this country,
that it is better not use
lcssly to send patent cases
to a trial at law by a jury.
Now. what is there here
that a jury can try ?
What is there here that
is not specifically proved
one way or another!"
again.
Again, in speaking Of
the ground Of estoppel,
Mr.. Webster says: "Now,
in the first place, rs to
his being estopped by his
conduct and acts, these
advertisements of reward
to anybody who would
give information by which
infringers upon these pa
tents could be brought to
justice, ought to be mat
ter of estoppel."
again.
" He is estopped by
deed, his own covenants
under seal admitting the
validity of the patents (;
and now he is deriving
from the license to work
under that covenant be-
nefit to the extent of
thirty thousand dollars
clear profit a year; and
he comes in denying his
covenant. Why, no man
can enlarge upon this. 1t
is conclusive" SC.
Mr.. Webster'S Words.
{" Now, need l 60 fur
Their than this general
statement taken from the
great mass of the evil
dence before your Honors,
to prove that Goodyear
was the author of this
invention /! Yes, l will
go further, and say in
the first place the patent
which he obtained is proof
of that fact.
Now, sir, on the gene
raj question it is conceded
on the other side that
the Court Of Chancery in
England, or here, has
what Mr.. Choate calls the
gigantic power to grant
an INDUCTION without any
aid from a jury or court
of law.
Mr.. Choate admits the
power, but he insists that
when the injunction is
applied for at the hearing,
the practice has become
settled in England, so as
to amount almost to a
doctrine or rule of law,
that unless the plaintiff
establishes or has estab-
lished his title at law,
the injunction is refused.
Now, we say, there has
been no such doctrine
settled as an invariable
rule, or even a practicable
one, in England, or here.
Whether the Court will
or not oblige the patentee
to establish his title at
law before issuing an in
junction. is a question de-
termined by the exercise
Of the discretion, the
sound judicial discretion,
Of the Court.
Here are the cases. l
shall not trouble your
Honors to take notes Of
them.
Now, the practice in
England Of sending patent
cases to o jury when the
validity Of a patent is put
in issue, seems to have
been a mere rule Of con-
venience.
Perhaps, as has been
suggested" SC.
Here again:
els there either Of the
members of this judica-
ture who feels a reason
able conscientious doubt
that n trial of a month
before a jury would re-
move I 1t is proper to
state it in that way, be-
cause ! say it is a ques-
ton Of discretion"
ANOTHER sUPPI
"That whenever a pat
invalid by reason of n d,
cription or specification,
advertence. accident, o
fraudulent intention, the
and be entitled to a re-iss
same invention for viii
granted, in accordance W
description and specifica
state very shortly, &c.
The above is just what
just what the combinatio
moment stand by under
Why suppress It from
qualifying attitude in w
During the occurrence
close of Mr.. Wcbster's
very busy, but it's prof.
confusion" made it uswi
Mr.. Webstcr's speech, nm
1t is only produced to sh,
il is not doubted but the
as interesting as much III
never did occur on the tr
Mr.. WFBsTER--"He