The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-02-04

KR's CONNECTION WITH THE CALCIUM LIGHT IN |
FINEST OF PROFESSOR GRANT.
Yesterday Afternoon case was tried before Justice
Box, in Williamsburg, in which . Peter Cooper, Of New
York. and Professor Grant, the patense Of the calcium
nshs partiesshe former plaintiff and the latter
Me defendant was an action Of ejecment brought to
apossess Mr. Grant Of certain premises in haspeth ave-
nue. which had been occupied by Mr. Grant for some two
years. consisting Of cottage house and shed asachsd
ALSO shop on the of the lot occupied by Mr. Giant
n manufacturing his patent calcium lamp
Jury of Elk persons having been selected, the case
oeped part the plaintiff his counsel who briefly
staed that Mr. Peter Cooper the owner oil .he pro-
perty in question: and that me premises we're C 10 me
acquainted with Grant in 1885, and at that time defendant
had workshop in Forty nth street. near ss IN avenue
New York. where he was engaged in msnui' curing this
calcium light and new kind Of gas. Grant
was out of funds and very much emho rrassed Mr.
Cooper then offered him the rent OF tae house now
question, telling him TO go and stay there and see
he could any better there than in New York The re-
burg which house he has occupied ever since Mr. Cooper
at times caDcng money TO help nm along Mr.. Cooper
has get rid of Grant by pear cable measures but
those falling was compelled TO aor the mode Of
e,ec,inp him the 10Th December last he him no
toe 10 quit Mr. Cooper suy that before
ahe 18th January he would leave. Counsel stated that
Mr. Grant had made redievry statements relation
70 the between them which would be shown
evidence.
Tbe first witness called was James Hail. who testified
that he in the iron Business in New York, and re-
sided the Eastern District, Brooklyn; have known
described the shed and workshop In question: and
remembers Grant moving into them about four years
since the l4th 10Th January had conversation
with Mr. Grant, the presence of Mr. Norman Andrews.
witnesses house. when he saw notice 10 quit served
on Mr.. Grant; after that Grant called at witness
hcose in relation the shop, and said that he
wanted get the building OF the lot before the 18TH
January he had had notice 70 leave on that day ne
wanted the building attempts had been made 70 remove
the building, which OF the causes Of his calling On
witness; stated that he was peaoeaoe man aud
should the 18th without trouble; next saw Grant
on the q h of January the Office Of Beeoe Donohue,
New York when conversation took place between Grant
Mr. Parsons Mr. Herriz and witness relation 10 the
house Grant SAID that be held the premises tenant
until the 9th of January that Mr. Cooper mad al
m,ted ,ha, he was the for that time producing
paper which was notice TO quit on the 9th.
On examination witness stated that he was IN
the employ of Mr. Cooper since ls4o also that there were
persons present BeeDe Donohues Office al The time of
the above conversation but who he does not recoect
Grant said relation the matter that he was tenant,
but will stated IN the paper; Mr. Grant said
that be considered The shop his own property at the
time he said be would dol't think he SAID lie
would surrender HIS title to the premises.
Papers then in evidence 10 show that plaintiff
had instituted proceedings 10 possession OF the
premises returnabe ON the 2Ith of January.
Norman Andrews testified 20 he service OF the papers on
che def. nc ant personally, az his esiience.
The plaintiff then rested and counsel for defence pro-
eeeded open case by moving that the proceedings
be dismissed the ground that evidence
10 show that The relation OF landlord and tenant existed
between the PARTIES The motion being denied he pro-
ceeded 10 state that in 1854 55 Grant employed in
New York in the manufacture OF his calcium light and
gas. While so engaged he became acquainted win MI
Peter Cooper Mr.. Cooper seeing that Grant scen
tic man. went TO hun, and seeing that there was pro
spsct OF making money, tells Grant that If he vii! pun
down b rs shop New York and 60 10 Bushwck he would
advance tbe money necessary 70 tue supp pcrlsct
his invention send HIM TO Washington TO secure his
patent, and also gige him Proessorship in the Cooper
Institute There were no writings or agreement drawn up,
but Cooper induced Grant to trust himself IN his hands
he advanced money 10 put up Inc SHOP ana started nm
In consideration OF these services Mr. Cooper TO
ceve half the profits of the patent and the agency OF
the patent 10 sell When this was done he was 10 cancel
Grants Indebtedness to him. With these considerations,
Mr. Grant pulled his building, and removed 70 VIII
Harrisburg, leaving profitable business Before the pro-
ect was completed MIR Cooper became interested other
projects and left Mr. Grant 10 work his way out of il.
The following testimony was then introduced
Franklin W. Riddle for DEFENDANT reside IN New York
and am attorney at law with Beebe, Dean Donohue
No 10 Wall street, was present at the conversation IN
that office; was in the back office at the time and heard
come talking the front room; heard some one
say-think II was Mr.. Parsons Grant, what you
here forS Grant replied that ne was there on business
and wanted TO what Parsons there for got up
and went INTO the front ROOM and saw Grant take paper
from his pocket saying, have received letter from
M Cooper, but don't admit his assumption that am
,enabt at will; Mr.. Parsons turned 10 Mr. Hall
and said, =" DO you hear THAR he admits that
he is tenant at wl;' Mr.. Hall replied, Eyes, hear
~ Mr. Grant emphstcay replied, ~ DO not admit IT,"
and called upon them witness II; both Grant and Mr.
Parsons seemed very much excited; don't remember
hearing anything said about holding tenant until the
27th heard that passed between the
parties except what passed before came N, but heard
all that said after Grant took out the paper.
Thomas whaley testihed- reside in Brooklyn and am
manufacturer philosophical Instruments know Cooper
and Grant; have known Grant Tor some eighteen years,
and MIR. Cooper since i small boy: know OF Mr..
Grants having shop IN New Yoak and one over h
Williamsburg previous 70 the shop In New York
beng removed Grant and Cooper had come conversation
. bout moving the shop when Grant made objection
ng IL Mr. Cooper related the advantages Of moving
H. and Grant then concluded TO remove Il, Mr.. Cooper
agreeing to give him money to build shop and house,
and assist HIM manufacturing birch bark gas,
which was then just invented The shop was removed
from New York and rebuilt its present SITE Mr.
Cooper was to furnish money 70 complete the calcium
hight, and send HIM to Washington to OBTAIN patent
this there another conversation, which Mr.
suitable for the purposes OF manufacturing than the
present one; he gave no reason for making these ad
Craig W. Haskell tesuhed--I know Mr.. Grant,
and have seen Mr.. Cooper; heard some converse
between Grant and Cooper 20 the removal
Mr.. Cooper wanted Mr. Grant to over 10 Williams
burg and perfect calcium ght that he was at work
upon, when the latter objected Mr. Cooper said "You
won't have pay there that be would furnish
him house 10 live in, ground TO put his shops and
give him money TO TO Washington 70 get patent, &c,
r Cooper to nave one half Of the patent right when
tented; Mr. Cooper there several times when these
conversations took place something was sad about Grants
having profsssorshp IN the institute which COOPER was
building ID New York
Mr. CoopeT-Do you swear 70 that, sirS
Witness-Ycs, sir.
Mr. Cooper-ihen l swear that ii IS false
Mr.. Gfant-Ii is true,
Witness coninued--I noticed that Mr. coopors teams
employed in removing the things away from New
p NJ Ravens ustifed-I know Nessrs Cooper 4 Grant
of ls54-'5 undertook nego,a,e the INTRO
ducton OF the calcium light TO the Lighthouse Board in
Washington, and introduced some parties to Mr. Cooper
conversations between Judge Wentworth Paul
George, Mr. Grant and Mr.. Cooper was that the two
rst named 10 take steps in order to introduce the
matter TO the Lighthouse Board, their expenses be
paid by the gentlemen first named and Mr. Cooper
pay the expenses of Grant 10 Washington IN order
10 further the arrangement was 70 draw up agree
ment to define the rights and interests Of the respective
parties understood that Dir. George and Wentworth to
have certain interest in consideration Of their services
and advances be rendered Mr. Cooper and Mr. Grant
another interest, and myself another the agree
rnent drawn up by myself in few days after but am
mt az az q
there already lights prepared and Mr Grant
was progressing with others the agreement was never
contaminated; after II Was prepared put II INTO Mr..
Coopers hapas 10 look at and after few days called TO
get II at his store, when received IT, with this endorse
ment-"Rescted. Peter "copper" the matter
70 anything after that the substance OF the
after this that he would not sign such paper for any
consideration that could be named drew up the paper
according TO my understanding Of the agreement mad 10
the conversation between Dessrs Wentworth George,
Cooper and Grant.
Joseph Henshaw for plaintiff, testified that he knew
The nnrtcs In this and had heard Mr. tak