New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-08-12
THE IMDlA.RUBBER CONTROVERSY.
STATEMENT OF MR.. JUDSONS COUNSEL.


York will take little space to rejoin for him as
well for myself hoping to dlspel tue mist which all
this writing has east on very clear 'ubject.
Mr. Judsons statement, lndorsed by myseE
amounted simply to this: that Mr. Day and he being
both claimants Of the night TO vucanzed rubber
in woven elastic goods Mr. Day has brought some
suits in Baltimore against parties selIog suc1
goods, VITO common tiespassers upon
0nes rights; that 10 the progress Of these suits
MIR. Day and the defendants agreed to make q case
for fnal hearing out Of mass OF &c pa'fe afi'
davits, the contents Of which in part uu-
known to AIR. Judson or h,s counsel; tDat this
final bearing, thus amicaby arranged, was had
before Judge Giles, without tue aid procurement
Of Mr. Jud.on, and without the presence Of COUNSEL
familiar With this elaborate aud involved controversy
and that the decision rendered upon this proves
no more then that Mr.. Day beat Mr.. S'elmau upon
the case thus made, aud toe argument presented on
it, Mr. Judson asserts further that his tights are the
subject Of suit directly against Day and will be de-
termned in tina; suit In my letter 'imply stated
that as Mr.. Judsons counsel, kUew noticing of the
case made before Judge GIes, and ignorant that
there was to be a iual bearing, and that Mr. Judson
had, upon due consideration and advice decided to
take no part in the controversy at Baltimore.
The effect inter ded TO be produced by this letter of
Dir Judson to guard merchants ano others against
the false impression that bis rights bad been settled,
and to notify all persons interested that he was in the
due course of suit asserting his title aud that, when
established he would hold all persons liable who n-
ffinged it.
In reply, five long columns Of print produced,
which, so far as | see, do not deny any statement
made except that which relates TO tue fioa bearing,
although some argume Is are Used TO cast doubt upon
their truth The single question is whether Mr..
Judsons title s settle by thus Baltimore proceeding
lie was not party to the SUIT; he never saw the
parties to it; he never their lawyer bat once,
for few minutes; lie did not know what
the case was which was to be made; but
he does know as know, that he is in possession of
much stronger proof to sustain his title than has yet
been produced in any Of these controversies. Under
these circumstances, Mr.. Day and has ia1yers insist
that Mr. JudsOu's title is settled: | insist that no
mans rights be settled, unless he is party to
the suit and is allowed to prove his case and be
heard IN it. Lawyers kRow how absurd the propo-
sition is that any man can be judged without hear
ing; and laymen can easily see how unjust it would
be. One reflection, however, must strike all min is
with force-that Days case must be very desperate
one when the best proof of It's validity lies 10 the fact
that he has beaten some stranger the title upon
consented hearing, although he was beaten on the
same question when Mr. Judson defended the parties
Much stress is laid upon toe fact thet this Baltimore
suit ended in final hearing, and Mr.. {. A. Seward
is selected TO contradict Mr. Jud on in this particular
In bis letter he assumes to retae Mr.. Judsons letter
in this language:
cit is further alleged
al That this. e the Baltimore hearing-was
not final hearing
Now, Sir Mr.. Judson made no such allegation in
his letter. Here are his words:
"Tbe facts of the are as follows:
"l This was not final hearing, except by the
consent of some strangers me- VINO have no interest
whatever in the title, aud whose consent is Just
valuable to affect my rights as the consent OF Day Is
that they shall be Affected
When so plain statement as that of Mr. JudSon
can be 30 perverted in the face of the world what are
we to expect when statements are made whose truth
is more difficult to ascertain =
Mr. Seward then says
"Eirst That this cas final hearing, not by con-
q" sent, but upon pleadngs and proofs THIS aver
mett ADMITS of no msoonstructon. IL is either true
or false to the knowledge OF Mr. Seward and hs parry
they were there and cannot be deceived MI Seward
IS lawyer and knows what " final hearing is, ana
whether it is one "by consent or "uponth pIeadngs
and proofs" lie clearly recognizes this destruction,
and plainly AYERS that this hearing net By con-
sent" but ros "upon the peadlpgr and proofs
What this distinction means will explain, in order
that the public may appreciate the value oil s'a'e-
ments resorted to in this
When plaintiff thinks himself injured, he may hle
his BILL and give the defendant notice of motion to
be made IN Court for Injunction. The defendant may
either oppose that motion permit it to 60 by default,
"a the Baltimore defendants did. If he choose the
latter course ne may file his answer and II upon
the complainant with notice of motion to dissolve the
riunctiop which motion the Court is bound to hear
This was the motion which | supposed Mr.. Marshal
was about to make; and, any lawyer knows, 1t
would have been the proper to make the defend
ants intended to avail themselves Of al legal detenses
Day knows it well, for upon such motion The New
England Spring Company" dissolved conditioner
Injunction against them which he hsd Induced JUICE
Belts TO grant upon the Chaiee patent when he set
up his false claim TO it, and filed the newspapers, as
now, with his advertisement of that opinion IN his
favor After the fling of the answer the parties pro
coed TO take "proofs for a final hearing, aud to
take those "proofs' the rules give three months
Witnesses are called, examined and cross'exanined
in the presence of both parties; irrelevant testi
fnopy il objected to- and the truth is siet out by
tbe most trying process known TO the human
intellect. When bath sides have closed their
nroofs tie case goes TO fusl hearing; aud this is
the only proceeding known TO the law las a tnal
"bearing upon the pleading and proofs IL the
reader Of this have any doub, shout the correctness
of this statement ask any lawyer, except Mr.. Seward
and Mr.. Seward in any case except TINS.
But final hearing by consent may be snSthins
YOU please. Parties TO litigation may consent 10
90 to fnsl hearing upon the peadings, aud copy OF
"Scotch Dictionary, if they think nt- Ice