New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-03-16
THE GREAT INDIA RUBBER CASE.

DECISION IN FAVOR OF HORACE II. DAY.
This case hes taken 30 much time in the United
States Courts and become Of so much general inter
est that we give below short account OF the crcum-
stances producing the litigation, and synopsis Of the
trial.
Prior TO 1885, the manufacture Of India Rubber in
this country though quite extensive, was entirely
impractcable because the original article Of COM
uerce could not by any known way be spread upon
CLOTH or reduced to paste for that purpose, without
first dissolving the in spirits OF turpenhne, or
some other known solvent and as 1t took more than
one gallon of spirits of turpentine THE best article
known to dissolve one pound Of rubber, which cost
shout CO cents the rubber was made very expensive
ard ss the solvent must necessarily be evaposated
after the goods were made much time and labor were
REQUIRED; at the same time the goods were IN
iured by the use of solvent. Many inventions
had bee made by which spread the dissolved gum
upon the cloth, but no one supposed that the solvent
could be dispensed with. In 1885 poor iaeorer In
the rubber fac tory of the Roxbury Company in Mas
sachusetts, after years experiment. discovered
mode or process by which, by the use of certain ma
cbinery he could make the rubber into a paste and
spread it on cloth without the use of solvent and
with much less labor and for this he received pat
ept This was the first great step in the Rubber bus
ress of the country it greatly reduced the cost Of
manufacture, and made much better goods. Soon at.
ter this, Nathaniel Hayward, Of Massachusetts, dis
covered that sulphur compounded with rubber made
better article of goods than the rubber alone, as 1t
operated as dryer and for this he received pat
ept which was issued in the name of Charles Good
wear which was also valuable invention though We
understand Mr.. Hayward claimed the invention to be
the result Of dream, and not Of experiment In
1874, Charles Goodyear being the owner OF the Hay
ward Patent, and still finding that there was diii.
Guilty with the goods, inasmuch as they were Affect
ed by cold patented process Of heating the goods
after they were manufactured by the Chafee
and Hayward process, in hot dry oven, and
that heat, 10 applied, would render the goods
more durable, and, TO some extent, proof agains'
heat and cold. He soon after came in possession
the Chaffee patent, so called, for mere nominal sum
-ChsHee continuing poor; and up TO $50; the time
Of the expiration Of the Chaee patent, the licenses
of Goodyear, whose agent was VIM. Judson, Now
York lawyer, manufactured nearly all the goods
made of Indiarubber in the country under the 'nree
nst.pts; and there was invested in the business an
immense capital, and almost the entire rubber ousi
nsss Of the country was in the hands OF ms ooay
licensees Up 10 1850 Chsfee had received no SUP
.taptis equivalent for his invention and still consn
ued dsy.laborer At that time he was induced 10
agree with Mr.. Goodyear to convey to him his eI-
tended patent, should it be extended, for the sum OF
al ooo ,nd q business connection with Goodyear.
Under this agreement Chafee proceeded, with the aid
Of ,Judson, to obtain the STANDARDIZATION ad-
vspcipc the necessary fees for the EXTENSION.
Az soon as il was extended Judson claimed
,bs, Cbsfee should make some conveyance OF
a right TO use the patent TO him ior Ills
berest and the benefit of the licenses of Goodyear
whose agent Judson was. Chafee did make con,
tract with Jud.on in writing which was amended and
altered in ls5l, and in which Judson agreed 70 pay
Chafee 81 500 per year, forthe seven years 10, inc
use of the patent for the licenses OF Goodyear ana me
licenses to pay the expenses of the extension to Jud
sOr-Jud.0n then claiming to have paid them out OF
his own pocket. 1t was shown, ct the time OF me
extension, that the extended term was worth ssoo0oo
or ease, 600; yet Judson obtained it at the sun Of
$500 per year for the licenses Of Goodyear and
bound Chafse TO license no other one without Jud-
| sons consent.
Jpds0n, - Caaass claims, after time refused t.