The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-25

about $780, and then uses the following language;
ist Goodyear being in embarrassed circumstances
/ until 1847 / did not press him for the balance;
Is and although considered at one time that the
/ license remained miue, because Goodyear had
!. not paid the two thousand dollars in full in the
precise manner stipulated, never elected to
force such claim against him, but preferred to
hold that the license had ceased. under which !
Il never manufactured; that the assignment rested
{ in Goodyear, and he remained my debtor in the
balance of say $780, Therefore am content to
9 have the whole $4,000 charged received by
me.'
| 1t cannot but be deemed singular that Hayward
should never have collected this balance of one
who has been for years floating in aff1uence 1t
calls for explanation He to feel this, and
in place of one he gives the views he has enter
| tanned respecting the license being in force How
does this account for the note remaining unsettled?
| The license was never contingent on the payment
| of the 5000. 1t is not easy again to understand
the inference he draws-"therefOre am content
to have the whole $4,000 charged" &C. How
does this follow from abandoning the license! And
when it is seen that though he sspreferred to hold
that the license had ceased" yet he does not pro
fess that it was ever discharged or surrendered.
think every will feel that here is good deal
| to awaken inquiry
| The statement that upon the 5000 note Hayward
received but S $50, and that $3.50 remain yet
unpaid is, Furthermore, not easily reconciled with
the deposition he gave in June and j ly 1851, to
| be used on the trial of what is widely known as
the "Great India rubber Case,' at Trenton, New
Jersey. Among the exhibits there is contract
between Goodyear, Hayward, and Henry Burr.
dated November 10, 1S45, under which Goodyear
licenses Hayward and Burr to manufacture boots
and shoes under the present patent and Good
years patent of 1914, they paying tariff of five
Genus per pair On being inquired prospecting this
contract, Hayward says, in his ans~er to question
SOB, thata Mr.. Dorr, on behaj of Goodyear agreed
to give me license to manufacture 300 pairs of
shoes per day for the right hold under Goodyear,
and to pay me what Goodyear owed me- Good
year owed me little over O00" In answer to
question 605-utmately "there was nothing paid
me only free license to manufacture 500 pairs
of boots and shoes per day, to offset iuhat Mr. Good
gear 'cas oaosng me, and the rights and CLAIMS
/ | held under his patent was allowed me by
Goodyear" In his next answer he says ne was
| thinking of the five cents per pair, and was mis
taken in saying he restricted to 800 pairs per
day; it 300 pairs per day. In the last
statement he was probably misled by the interro
gatory, which stated that the contract named 300
pairs per day, and by his recollection of a simu
taneous contract under which Goodyear released
| Hayward and Burr from the tariff on 300 pairs of
| boots and shoes per day, $4,000 per year. 1t
will be observed that MIR. Hayward here says that
Goodyear owed him little over 900 dollars,
and for that Goodyear gave him the Icense to
himself and Burr, who was his partner, aud after
ward member of the Hayward India rubber Com
pany. These circumstances are not introduced 30
fully forthe mere purpose OF ellcilng the apparent
| Inconsistency of these statements of Mr.. Hayward
| which may be owing to inadvertence, and throw
no great light upon the question at issue but be-
cause they have an important BEARING upon the
other part Of the case. Before proceeding. it
should be observed that the counsel for Mr. Hay
| ward claimed that Goodyear had no authority to
give the license to Hayward and Burr, having
previously granted the entire and exclusive shoe
right to the Goodyear Shoe Company" Nosuch
document is TO be found among the exhibits. The
records of the office 10 which general reference
made, have been searched, however, and from
| them ii appears that on the 4th of March, 1916
Goodyear licensed "Goodyear's Metallic Rubber
Company to use his Improvements in manufac
turing boots and shoes, not exclusively in terms,
bat with stipulation not to manufacture himself,
nor grant license to any one else On this state
ment alone there is nothing TO impair the license
to Hayward and Burr, as lapprehend; and the re-
nledy of 'sGoodyear's Metallic Rubber Company"
must be the covenant against Goodyear for
granting this license. 1t is perfectly valid ITSELF
Reference was also made to a contract between
Goodyear and Candee, and Others; but that
bears date July l, 1913, and could have no effect
on this cense. The counsel for the opponents
were also challenged to deny the assertion that
nothing bad ever been manufactured under it.
But from another deposition of MIR. Hayward,
taken in August, 1851, it is plain that Hayward
and Burr, and after them the Hayward Rubber
Company, were engaged in manufacturing shoes
about this time. (See answer to questions 325
to SS0.) 1t does not appear whether they had
any other license than that to Hayward and Burr
until the contract above mentioned with Candee
and others, of July |, l84S. An obscurity hangs
up by any thing produced upon the hearing.
Ofthe So, 900 to be paid by Goodyear, in order to
have the license of 1888 cancelled, Hayward says
that on the Sd of April, l84l, he paid S 900 in
license to make boots and shoes, which ne, Hay
ward, afterwards sold to LeYerett Candee for that
sum. The license, as found among the exhibits,
empowered Hayward, or any one he authorized,
to manufacture boots and shoes without limit,
under any patent Goodyear might have OBJ
tain, paying five cents per pair; the license not !
to take effect for six months, and to be void |
il Ia that time Goodyear paid Hayward S 900. |
Now, in Mr. Hayward's first deposition. he ties
titled on this subject, in to questions |
2O9 and I'll, follows: "That 81 ,000 think Mr. |
Candee paid me.' ssHe gave me S 900 for the |
agreement of April 8. ls4l; and $500 on other
6 | afterwards gave Goodyear credit for'' If Can
dee purchased this license for 5 500. itwas pro- |
per that Is 900 of the money should be credited in
Hayward's account of the invention But why t
should Hayward apply the other $500 upon Good
years other debts? Why was it not part of the |
proceeds OF the invention and to be credited as
such? Goodyear's right to redeem the license was
lost; he had no interest in the fund.
The other S 200 Goodyear paid HAYWARD on
the same Sd April, 1871, by three drafts on John
Ryder, payable at eix, nine and twelve months
on the payment of which Hayward was to execute
release to Goodyear of the license he hello under
the original sale of October 10, 1898 The release
be dated and executed on the payment of the
drafts, but the drafts not being paid, was never
perfected. RAISING over otner negotiations there
Is among the exhibits copy of an instrument
dated April 80, 1912, in which Hayward after
stating that two of the drafts on Ryder remained
unpaid, agreed that, if they paid by the 2Sth
June after, Goodyear should have the nett of it
the same as if the drafts promptly paid In
Hayward's deposition he tesifes as toithis paper
in answer to questions SIT, 679, 6S3: 81 cannot /
state it was ever in their hands % (Those of the
counsel } 81 found it among my papers, Il
think gave it to Goodyear.'' 500 Fl
The documents referred to are all among The es-
hibits. From them it appears that the original |
license granted by Goodyear 10 Hayward on the |
10th October, 1888, is sllin full forc. 1t is true
that Mr.. Hayward, in his account, says he .schose
to consider that the license had eased % and that
he never manufactured under it, Yet it is unde- |
niable that he insisted upon ito being in force at |
various times. On these points his deposition
above entioned throws some light, and is not
little remarkable.
The l95th question, referring to the present pa
tent, is this: care you now a manufacturer of |
India rubber goods under that patent 20 Answer |
81 am
Question 1876. s'From whom have you license?''
&c Answer. sThe company that am Interest," d |
in has license from Mr.. Goodyear &c.
Question 19S ssWho signed your license to use |
the SO called sulphur patenti'' Answer ssCharies
Goodyear "a
Question 1893. ssWhen? And is it still in force ?''
Answer. "fhe sulphur license was signed in 1888 |
6 should think that license was good, | think