The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-08-09
The IN dna Rubber Controversy
JUDGE GILss' DECISION.
10 THH EDITOR on THE EKW YORK HERALD.

of Judge Giles, of Baltimore, deciding certain suit
between e9 Horace Day and some persons Sy the
advertisement Of the opinion whether it s intended
to exhibit the shill Of the reporter who caught it
from the lips Of the Court. the legal abilities Of
ton.
The facts Of the case are these:-Mr. Day is the
iicensee of Mr. Goodyear for the manufacture Of
~ SHRED or corrugated India rubber goods" the
Naskawannuck Company aud are the licensees
Tor woven elastic rubber goods Days title accrued
IN !S46; ours accrued to those who granted il to US
IN !s44 From lS45 till the present time the owners
quantities or goods under it, and Day never pre-.
tended, till 1857 or 49, that the two rights con
Ilc1eo, OF mat our title was subordinate to hs.
In 1867 or '6s, however, Day brought some suits
on his title against persons who were selling '.wo.
ven elastic rubber goods without license from ma.
and no objection being made. injunctions were
in Boston, Providence, New York and Phiadenb,a'
Having thus laid foundation for an attack unon
some real defendant, he began in New York. and
interposed my title as defense. The cause was
argued in January last by Judge Curtis and Mr..
Jenkes for Day, and by MIR. Brady and Mr.. Dicker-
son for me, and Judge Ingersou decided that Days
rights were confined to shirred goods, and that our
title to woven goods was complete That disposed
of Day in New York. He then began in Philadel.
phia and Judge GIier refused to review the decision
in New York, and Day failed again. AT Baltimore he
renewed the attempt and as had no interest in the
defendants there, and as no defence was made, er
p0rte njunctions were obtained they had been in
Boston and elsewhere. At this stage of the pro-
ceedngs, as | have been informed for the first
time since this decision some agreements were
entered into between Day and these Baltimore
defendants, (none Of whom, by the way, have
! ever seen, nor do know their names, except as
published in the opinion,) by which they agreed to
fore Judge Giles. What that case was / do not
know. The young gentleman who managed it APP
piled to rue for some copies of papers, which sent
him; but with that exception had no connection
| know that nnrat co. , n -
hearing between these parties, or should not have
furnished even these copies. | supposed until I'M
deceived by the opinion, that the argument which
was to be made vas the usual one in such case3--
that is, an argument on motion to dissolve an in.
iuctop, which would have been the proper motion
to make But, as it seems, case was made and ar
gued, as the papers say, by Mr.. Latrobe, T. A.
,enkes and 9. A. Seward, of New York with whom
the Hon. b. Il. Curtis, of Massachusetts, and Others
were associated. Who argued the other side is not
stated, but the public is led to suppose that it was
done by my counsel and by my procurement The
fact is that very promising young lawyer of Bal
timorc.-Mr. Marshal by name-who knew nothing
by experience of the complications Of this contro-
yersy, and whom did not employ, argued for the
argued with ability and intelligence on both sides
scarcely ever surpassed The result was as might
have been expected-Mr. Day beat Mr.. SteIlnau.
IfMr. Day thinks that this way Of advertising his
ridiculous claim is good one, have no objection.
He has tried it several times before during the last
fifteen years, and it has always ultimately failed,
it will il this case.
The facts Of the case are rs foows:--
l. This was not FINAL hearing" except by the
consent OF some strangers to me. who have no inte
rest whatever in the title and whose consent is Just
as valuable to affect my rights as the consent Of
Day is that they shall be affected
2 bays is not the older title, but mine is; and it
is title which has been aijudcated by the courts
for the last fourteen years and is as well known in
the Supreme Court as it is to me.
8. There is no settlement Of the question nor
any approach to one it may settle Mr.. Stenan's
rights in Maryland. for aught l know, but not
mine. When my rights arc settled, will be q
party to the record, and it will be known who
argued my cause; and when the suit is decided
it will be decided upon something more sub
staptial than the word "shirp,'' found in Scotch
dictionary, which seems to have been the
chief means by which his Honor Judge Giles dis
covered what Goodyear and Day meant by their
contract of 1896 have suit pending against
Day in this district to enioin him from any further
troubling the country with this crazy claim, and
that suit will settle our rights.
Meanwhile, it may be well for those who sympa-
thize with Mr.. Day to remember that for fifteen
years he has been engaged in fighting Mr.. Good
year and his licensees and has always been de-
ieated-never yet having succeeded in establishing
q single point, although he has at times gained
some temporary advantage. He attempted to re-
pudiate this very shirred goods license which he
now claims under, and swore it was void and was
defeated. He attempted to break down Goodyear's
patent, and swore it was void, and was defeated.
he attempted to get possession of Chaffees patent
owned by me as trustee for Goodyear, and his
licensees, and which he had before sworn was void
on an application Tor extension, and brought near a
hundred sDits on it, and was defeated by decree Of
the Supreme Court, referred to in Judge Giles Op-
ion. And fitting finale to his career is this at
tempt to stretch his shirred goods right which he
has by oath upon oath declared fraudulent and
void, over subject never included in it; and GER
tain end of his attempt will he a repetition of his
former defeats. The object of this parade of q de-
cison in oil the papers is obvious. II is to enable
Day to f,ighten merchants into paying him some
ha IL cd hv,,
Ing against him; and take this occasion to notify
all persons acting with Day that shall enforce my
rights against them and that they pay him at their
peril and further give notice that | will protect
any person taking title under me from any suit
which Day may bring. WILLIAM ,JUDsON
August 2, 1859
TO THs EDITOR OF TIE HERALD.
SIR was consulted by Mr.. Judson about that
Baltimore suit, and, upon consideration, IT was deci-
dedby him not to interfere with it. saw the gentle
man who had it in charge for the DEFENDANTS a few
minutes, one day, in passing through Baltimore
with Mr. IIdson to other places and on other busi-
ness, but was not informed that any final hearing
had been agreed to- nor did know what case was
to be made by either side. IF had known that
consented case had been made up, I shoud have
advised Mr.. Judson to appear 10 Court and protest
against it, so far as his rights might be called in
question; but surprising it to be mere motion to
dissolve an Injunction. in which Mr.. Judson was
perfectly Indifferent to the result thought it not
worth while to take any step in it, All the infor-
nation had upon the case when the decision was
published ia what the public have and 90 not know
what papers were laid before the Judge, nor Eek
cept from the opinion) upon what he decided; but
as very important papers are not mentioned by the
Court, conclude that he did not see them Very
respectfully, +. N. DICKEgsoN.
tnsz1eseI9s Experiments with She Gable.
II ON lie q see'nnd Plsudca'er
The Western UDcn Telegraph Company have
purchased ten miles 1t the Atlantic Telegraph ca
BILE at $3.50 per mile, lay across rivers and bays
The first laid was across the Mississippi at St
Louis, Zoo feet. This worked well at first but was