New-York daily tribune., 1859-09-27


such examination il shsll not appear TO the Coums.
torer that the had been inverted or discovered
by any other peoa in this country por 70 the suegeA
ths, it had been patented or described in any prssl
publication IN this or any foreign country or had osee
inpublc use or sale. With the applicants conssnf o.
shal deem to be sufficiently ussful and competeet, H
shan be his duty to patent therefor; the tsrns
in this section prior TO the application fr Q pstest
refer only the public use or sale tof tAs invsntos
with the applicants conseut or allowsncs" They do
not RIFE 10 anything ese. And the terms "prior to
the alleged invention OF the applicant refer to a. in
venton or discovery Of some one other than the ep-
phcan this country and also to- patent, OF dsscnp-
ton in soue printed publication in this or some foreign
country. The true meaning OF this section taken oy
itself H. that psent shall issue 70 the apphcsn' ana
be valid If Re Is the origrstor and aatnor Q. ser
yentop discovery upess the thing invented by him
has prior to the alleged invention or discovery OF the
app icart, been invented or discovered or used ~
else in this country; oy unless the invenuoe
some printed publication in this or some foreign coss
try prior to the asgsd invention or discovery OF the
spphesnt or unless said invention OF fhs apphcaas
had been In public use, or on sale with the
consent or allowance prior TO his application to tho
Commits or er for patent. This latter restriction vas
subseq querty modified by the act of 1882 20 that the
public sale or use, with the consent and sllow o.
the applicant must be more than two years before AIS
sIphCaticn 10 forfeit the right.
Other portions OF the same act confirm the view thus
taken Of the subject In the 18th section Is provded
| that upon the general issue, with motion, CERTAIN
matters may be given in evidence to VOID the
patent Among those matters are, that the thing psf
ered had been described in some public work anterior
Ae supposed diseorer, thereof BY The pateaie not an
terror 10 the application for Q pa,ent or that ha1
been in public sale with the consent and a.
owance of the paertee, before his application for
patent. The publication, to void the patent, must Dc
anterior to the discovery of the patenee II is not sum.
cient that il should be anterior to the application TO tho
Commissioner for patent.
Ii has been urged that the proviso Of the 18th section
gives different rule this subject. That proviso u
as follows: Tina. whenever it shall satisfactorily sP-
pear that the paentee at the time OF making the Apph-
cation f the patent believed himself 10 DO the hrx
inventor discoverer Of the thing patented the ssme
shall rot be void account Of the nvea,iou disccv
cry or any part thereof having been before known OF
used any foreign country; Il not appearing that the
same or any substantial part thereof bad before been
patented or described IN any printed public shon. IL
s claimed that the time referred by the terms shaw
rg been before known used in any foreign country,
is the tine when the application for the patent WAS
made and that the terms had before been patented
or described in any printed publication refer also
TO when such application was made, and not tothe une
when the original invention or discovery was made.
IL there any doubt rs to the construction whca
the proviso should renew II considered BY ITSELF tho
true construction of it, would be free of doubt whsa
considered in connection with other sections ana win
the wboe scope of the act viewed in such connection
mus. be held that the lime referred to by the tor ns
above recited the time when the original invention
or discovery Of the patentee was made aud not tue
| time when he presented his application to the Com
missioner Any other, or different construction OF ths
proviso would be in conflict with the whole scope OF
the act with the plain aud clear enacments OF certain
parts Of IT, and would make several Of the sections r-
| recouciable with each other.
With this view of the case the motion Tor new tHa
'N4' Sept. 9s-PsSr- Judge Nrtsox.
| DECISION IN ADMIRALTr-coLLlsIoN-yis MAJOR
| pERRY-BoAT-BAD WEATHER.
Samuel Beatty e, al ast Tn. Ferry Boat Brooklyn.
This libel filed by the lbel.uts and oxosrs o.
ns ..Os % eo,oa sons between The two ye.s on the
evening Of the lot Of January M In the I. ss k',s % ~.
II s. s and
s,fee BTootyn The usual TIP occupied esht
nHs ee Il was aood i'd. -hich ice ss.ass IN:
% S AMER hs sdss &. /. ss ss s
iha, obliged dss:. be. effort: TO enter the At.nss
sas the San. s1 s i sss isS
the sDs ss ss Fulton SS but a.
which checked her and while thu: The
brought ss.h, the Of schooner which lay
her end beside s., creating G' Other her
.ip between her aud the doel.
could be .ien that Tip The Might
ye sos and some two hoWs were consumed IN the effort 70
below dismissed the libel We have looked sentvey i,.o the
bis trip ,, the isi boat and after fullest consideration can
that faul, committed In her navigation Every
da,y could sss fr' gain the doci :. At
I , y % % to ysen s1s Ss % Is'; T. ss s. g:s S
which the accident occurred belonged the popeto o
the Besides the Of the tide carried place
having this point accident
entirely beyond the control Of the hands Of the bs
II has been argued that the boat should not have e her berth
Whitehall taking into consideration the night and the condition
Of the she had been running her regularly through
the day. and the last trip made just before occt The
ice had been running thu river weeks and dou
ties encountered In cDg yet thought OF closng
the ferries between the cities account OF the obfuc-
TONS IL been asned that the ferry boat after having
failed her dock Atlantic street. should have returned
duty 20 the which they would have failed 10 n6
further efforts had been made enable them 10 resch their
homes These efforts 10 my Judgment entitled 20 commsnd.
son and msLe an energy corresponding 20 the dangers and
theu arising The locality Of unskn
m and improper has been relied the part Of tbs respond
aud the circumstance that the OF the plot Of
the ferry boat to tbs clip ahead 81 the schnec But hss
70 place opinion upon undsputed Ths
| decree Of the Court below affirmed.
| SUPREME C0URr-CIscUIr-Sept6 6-Bsfors Justcs
| PoTTEa.
| THE WEST WASHINGTON MARKET CASE BEFORE A JURY.
The People rel Owen w. Brennan ct a. ss the Mayor,
| &c. eta.
As soon az permission was given for the city 10 sp
p-. defend Mr. Busted served denying
the title Of State West Washington Asrks snd and
pressed early trial To-day the Gales
Oh, and both sides were ready 70 pfocsed 10 tnsl
Of attendants and counsel for Of tina whom Mr.
Bus.sed represented He objected the soing ho
had received notice of the fact
Mr. Bseed ssd be appeared counss Tor the Mayor he.
(Mr Dus,sed) was ready Although be attorney Of record
for all the defendants except hoss for whom Mr. Lord sppsese.
il would give ha pleasure, the tina. OF this sceon "a
avail himself o the Distinguished abilities OF bis iserusd nens