New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-08-10

UoRAcr H. DAY. esq., New-Y ork-Dear Sir: |
have received your letter of the ith instant and reply
at once.
At your instance, filed some three or four months
ago fou, bills on the equity side of the Circuit Court,
United States Maryland District praying injunction
10 restrain the defendants Stellmsn and Heinrlcks
being among them, from selling articles alleged 10
fall within the meaning of the term " Shared or cor
rugated goods" used in the exclusive grant from
Charles Goodyear to yourself dated October ~, loio
and which, containing vulcanized India rubber, were
covered by Goodyears extended patent OF June 10
1914, ofwhch, so far such goods were concerned,
YOU were the absolute ownsr
The articles sold by the persons sued were woven
suspendcrs elastic cores in boots, carriers and other
goods which do not now recolect sufficiently TO
characterize, name appropriately.
No answers being fleo ipjunctions were granted IN
due coarse In the case Of Sellman and Helnrck $
however il was insisted that the litigation then pend
ing in New York would obyae the necessity OF lItisa
4ion in Baltimore and further time for putting IN an
answer was granted by the Couit, notwithstanding
the opposition of your counsel. No answer having
been filed, when the enlarged time expired, al
Injunction was granted. Mr.. Charles Marshall was
the counsel for Stelman and Henrcks, AID he re-
presented himself then 10 correspondence with the
counsel in New-ioik.
Judge Incersols opinion having been soon after
published | commenced at your instance, Zine other
suits of tae same character the above making tbir
teen in all. The defendants came it seems to an
understanding among themselves; and Stelman and
Heipcks the principal importers in Baltimore OF the
goods in question taking the lead, Mr. Marshall acting
tor all the parties sued it was agreed, with view OF
obtaining at the earliest dsy and with the leas, eX-
pense, the decision of the Supreme Court u. S. to
set the case down for final hearing upon BILL answer,
and the testimony that had been before Judge lager
sol on the motion fer preliminary ipunchon'
With this view, certified copies of all the Ne"-iork
1tdsyits were procured additional testimony on both
sdes was LET ip and with the whole mass OF document
airy evidence the case was argued before 'Se "ues
There was postponement from the day hrst appoint
ed but on this day, the day before, met Mr' Juo'
son and Mr.. Dickersop, accidentally IN Baltimore
smoke 70 them about the case referred to the post
poremebt. hesrd from them that they had seen Mr.
Marshall. and was l. # in doubt, when it was asked
Mr. D;ckerson would take part in the argument
whether he would or would not. Certainly, on this
occasion there was no appearance Of ignorance about
The case or ANY disclaimer of interest in the res IT, on
the par, Of either gentleman. Indeed was ha,ur@y
inferred from tie coincidence Of their appearance IN
Baltimore at the dav appointed for the hearing that
they were both TO be present 8. it, and thAt one OF
them to take part in the argument
When the argument did take place, it Is YER? true
that neither Mr.. DickeIson Mr. Judson we're pres
ent at il; but Mr.. Marshall whom always regarded
as representing Mr.. Juison, as well as his more
immediate clients, had by this time Judge lnsersoH
opinion before him, and the full benefit OF the rear
eument, in print, after the close of Judge Cu't-s
argument for the complainant, Of Mr. Juisoas COM