New-York daily tribune., 1859-08-03
THE INDIA-RUBBER CONTROVERSY.
JUDGE CHESS DECISION.

To he EditO, Of The ". y. Tribune.
SIR. In your paper OF Saturday, long opinion OF
Judge Giles of Baltimore deciding certain suit be-
tween Horace ii. Day and some persons by the name
OF Stelsn and others is advertised, and an editorial
statement of the effect Of that decision is made. To
the advertisement of the opinion, whether 1t IS IN
tended to exhibit the skill of w. H. Burr, who caught
it from the lips of the Court or the legal abilities OF
the Court which spoke it, have no particular obJec-
tiop but against the editorial comments OF IHE
TRIBUNE must be allowed to protest. The TRIBUNE
has been deceived into act Of involuntary injustice
TO me- and is used by Mr.. Day a. means OF adVer-
tisng bis groundless claim.
The facts of the case are these; MIR. Day Is the
liccnsee of Mr.. Goodyear for the manufacture oi
shirred or corrugated Jnda-rubber goods the
Naskaw annuck Company and are the licensees ior
woven elastic rubber goods. Days title accrued IN
1886 ours accrued to those who granted 1t TO Us IN
1874 From 1915 till the present time, the owners OF
our title have been making and selling large qusntl-
ties of goods under IT, and Day never pretended,
,iD 1857 or 'jS that the two rights conilicted,
or that our title wa. subordinate TO his. In
1857 or IS, however, Day brought some suits
on bis title against persons who were selling
woven elastic rubber goods without license
from us and no objection being made, irJunctons
were granted of course, against them. These suits
were in Boston Providence New York and Phiadel-
nbia. Having thus laid foundation for an attack
upon some resi- defendant he began in New-iork, ana
7 ir,ernosed nv title as defense. The cause was
argued in January last by Judge Curtis and MI
Jenkes for Day, and by Mr.. Brady and Mr. Dieker-
son for me- and Judge lngerson decided that Day
rights were confined to shirred goods, ana thas our
title TO woven goods was complete. That disposed
Of Day in New.York. He then began IN Phiisdei-
phia and Judge Grier refused to review the decision
in New.Yor and Day failed sgsin AT Baltimore he
renew ed the attempt, and as had no interest IN tne
defendants there and as no defense was made ff pare
iriupc,iops were obtained, as they had been in
Boston and elsewhere. At this stage OF the pro-
ceedings, 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 opnionl, by which they
agreed to make up case for final hearing, and to Try
! !, before Judge Giles. What that WAS do not
knew. The young gentleman who managed 1t ap-
pled 10 me for scme copies of papers which sent
| him. but with that exception had no connection
with IT, did not know that there vas TO be final
hearing between these parties, or should not have
furnished even those copies. supposed, until unde-
| .ived by the opinion, that the argument which was
., Ia made WAS the usual in such cases-that IS,
a.. arcurnept on a motion TO Dissolve an injunction,
which would have been the proper motion 10 make
IN, ss sesros Gaze made and argued, as the
n.ne,s saw, by "Mr. Latrobe, T. A. Jenkes, ana u
:. Seward Of New.YoIk, with whom the Hon. Is. H.
Curtis of Massachusetts and Others were associated
W., oroned the other eide is not stated, but the puo
i, s led TO suppose that it was done by my counsel
and by my procurement. The ia'' Is u" We!
promising young lawyer Of Balti"0re-hr nai'ua .n.
by name--who knew nothing b! eHpcneu'1 VI ~.
complications Of this controversy, ana wnou ur IO
employ argued for the defendants and ouuse G'is'
remarks that it was argued with an aoil's anu ~
"tellccnce IN both sides scarcely ever Su'PeS'sN'