New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-07-03

- nd
the application. II an iujancti is decreed bs,s
'O'oat, may u please your honOrs, IL il decreeJ "a,
ever " arrests the labor OF the defendant in "a
hti' Tor The whole lifetime Of the patent ipst..Js
be'ng merrly provisional and emporal ibteroos,
uon"' ms Court Z" tase care Of ssbiect-mstl.
until lawsuit IN be det. rninsd Ss the in,s~s.r
Of AL whom u may concer. ln-ssHd nf - B
for them both 10 sgaIt the deterasnsation Of s,
/ pe'petual inJunctiOu this dsy granted a ,s.5s
de eimnatiOE Oi the Cause, !" 6ais Fl fr.e,s.y
whe her the "buit " be bitter or sheth.r !,
! sweet tor ham tO whom 1t i. dl-trhutsJ All 70
! cord Igiy, may II pis ase the Conrt-and n -.
Ia state thus proposition 100 strongly IL is
cause We have been aired and attended v;t6 a.
sources oi counsel whom the Court kno and a..
tctnl-ihat | am able thus confidently IN 49,
! the proposition. submit that m This Sta. 80
! p0ketly clear that u has gown IA he the set,lst
course 81 chsncery, that on the nal hearing sh,e,
the plaintiff has prepared Tor hy ao earlier sons:
cation, and on bill fran, d-as am now assn, =
! mg this To be 6amtd-an ofdin,r, hin unon :.
| patent right. II Is matter OF course and shan
soon show your h0nOrs, | -pprrhend. ii II ~
Necessary 10 contend for 1t with any zeal th.t
! do not oVeIstote the proposi,nn-it has come tn
be matter unlveisS,, expected that ia tbx
stage. until the pantf shall have established 10
ttls at law. an injunction is refused, of Gomez
Twenty years ugO, or perhaps ten or fifteen wears
ago. shall find the authority for showing thar th;.
other bran n OF the ruie haS n settled althonss
perhaps upon less authority, but upon an eonaI
reason, that II the p amin has II, elected TO mako
! this motion at an ta'lrT stage, when he m,ght
have cone it-It he has neglected it on the 6Inr
! OF bls hul, On The Wng on o. his answer-if hs
has IAN still and put the defendant Of his gaacJ.
II he has dJne nothing until the defendant has ex-
| pended the lHbOrs OF summer, AMI ten thousand
! dollars OF money. 10 accumulate proofs Tor tho
trial Of the cause AT all-t the pl-iDsn shs have
lam, here he has, stock StlI without motion tor
10 mr. h..l N..nrS
OF Chancery has settled the doctrine that vii not
even retain The bull {" give him amor her chance but
VIII dIsnlss H. % course, ana leave the plaintiff 10
his remedy. | shall speak 10 both branches OF tina
rule. have sand that nJduct lon n the 6nsl
hearing Is, OF course, perpetual. ltis perpetual or
It is nothing. On this point let me turn e. some "
the most approved writers upon this sublec. irsk
refer To ny brother CuTtls's excellent work upoR
pat, ns. But the s .htrst attention To the author.
iteS upon the BRET still better "a the memory If
the bench makes II certain hat an injunction hero
Is nothing at all il lnjunc ton forever See
them II your honOrs p case, how earnestly wa feel
oun elves called upon 10 take the benefit which 10
lett for us OF The ruiz Tor which Ne contend wish
to repeat NY proposition again, IN orr er 10 leave no
ndn Ob of IL to which attention has not b, en- PAID
In thar conversation which arose, at the commences
n,nt OF this uIal, references we've made 10y the most
onnt III ounseltO the cases IN hlch was thought
the right 10 oil injunction had 4 been previously
esthbll he'd bN Il suit III law. Such one aspect
OF The tes Taph case, with which at my learned
friends and ny sell were connected, m Boston. Such
was the cast IN the great cause, W anOther0e
ltsbIunChes, tined by your tnnof-. Bs the consent
OF parties, anything may be done TO vary the drec-
ton. These cases. rs your hOnuTs know involve
matters of pure scivnce, aad IL was ,hJlght better
for many reasons not TO commit the canse 10
another tribunal FOR the heuIng Ot a iury or AT
tast ineXrcOenr to wi,hlra~ it from the decision
OF the bench. Those cases did not Turn on such
points us ths-wht Their EdIi had been guilty OF
LARCENY. They did not turn upon whether COL
Inns ptrjmed Inn self, or is an honest man. It did
hot tum upon whether Pate M this case is cor
rob0IAtCd By ten witnesses, on eleven witnesses
ar whether Hayward was n dreamer. The, do
not tuIn upon such CONSIDERATIONS or up IN such
evidence and your Honor wIli bear me out ia
saying that hall an hour exhibition Of the wit,
ne sses the stand under the crosse IA n,nation
OF counsel, and under the gaze OF twelve laymen.
" Ould reveal the tuth IN IRE certainly thap many
labOIs OF days ana nights upon srtlhcml teehnl-
calltes, that are embodied IN thes- records. Tnev
were totally different class OF CONSIDERATIONS;
und theItfoie Il was that they we've drawn to-
gttheI to the Courts of Chuncery, but subirct to
thar qualification, have the honor to repent and
We hel that we are here IN some measure certain-
y respecting this COu,t aud our opponents aud
Uurst Ives too much To decain abOuJ she Jury
tlnl, but We uGe here upon what We deem an in-
portunt and perhaps To The dutt ndant, novel and
mot important POINT OF practice. Now, move
10 question at oil with regard 10 an abstract
power OF II Court Of Chancen IN thus behalf On
the contrary, do not deny tnat power, a. | shall
show b, the great Chan ellUr Load Getting ham.
| shnll find HIM at The sa ne tine that he is adj
nnnlsteung tins rule, temporarily aud exactly
shall ma nm asserting, ne your hOnors Will as
serr, the very Ehest tone OF do. tnns with re-
gard To the absifacf power at Il CUurt of Chan.
cciy in Its theory; bat What | ~ill ray ~ this:
there az practical limits - this great power
thu pow h, Id and w,rlded in the actual admin
istralior, are perfect, DENIED. Thee limits are
perfectly defined and exacly within control aud
II Is just b. clearly scttl,d, aud by long, aud
wld-, and uhlOrm concurrence of practice that
while your honor power 10 grant the injunction
d, ndisI uIuble, though The heavens should pass,
thar gigantic power has been Me dcd with tem-
pelaiehess, aud dignity, und security Ut rights
which should al"ays accompany and regulate tho
administration of power large. Now, in
I, " WOIGs fOr the proof: lst, | s'uDd here 90 say
that there has never been aGudIcated case re-
porte on thr law under circumstances like these,
Oh which On injunction at the final hearing has
been ordered by he Court; not one adwdicated
cos6-LOt one And We 1--we under the Two hun
Oled ana sxteth year of the Cnanc, ry OF Eng
land, aud under Tie s.xtieth s-sentieth year Of
our own. There have brcn nnu, erable Obec-
tons to Considering these questions. l have
called 10 my d the learning Of the counsel ior the
piaintin; have addressed my sell % the learning
OF my associates, ana bcsto" ed On the lnyestlga-
ton as much time and much capacIts Of re-
stalch ar could employ, aud repeat-qults
uwe ale Of he responsibility under which | say it
there never was such adjudicated againss
lie in d Court OF Chancery.
The Curt here suggested that the Wheeling
Broge quite such case. To whsh MI.
Choate rel led
We stand IN the spec 6c case Of patent rgbI
end IN the discussion this point | shall found
my remarks i'll part upon the circumstance that fs
is patent right IL seems to me that 1t may
stand to some extent upon the distinction, If your
Honor please, on which Livingston and -
in tie 9th of Johnson, was decided. lt was
held, ard il is exactly principle which recos-
ME and whcb conteld im in this, tart mas
much o. the controversy IN that case did not turn
IN any dtgr.e upon mGtter oi fact ht and proper,
aid III ediul to be examined BY a jury, but only
Il L. - |. .I..a..-o r.r.nfs