New-York daily tribune., 1859-08-03
NEW-YORK DAILY TRIBUNE,

Ihe fetuN va. a. might have been eIfectei-h'
Day beat NJ, Stellnan.
Mr JAy ttirk- that this 1sy o. Advertising hi
rc~crlous claim is q good ore, have 10 OBJECTION
He ha- .risd several times before during the is
fteeu years and il always ultimately faleo' ss VII
in tbp case. Bn. do no. think you ought to he!f
,uch scheme, AID ~ will therefore aio" me u
correct your edi:orL specifcs.,.
4. Ibis vas not a fipa bearing" eA'vFt o! 49,
couser. Of some strangers 10 me- who haze 70 1I1e'
est whatever 10 hs tide, ard who-e consent is jn'' v
vs'usbe TO affect ny ights g. the consent ci Da!
tha; they shall be affected.
9 DAYS is not the older title, bit nine l. sna Il Is
title which has been alutics:ed by the CourF Tor
the last fourteen yesrs snd is az well known IN the
Supreme Court a. II Is Ia ne.
g. THIS 10 no settieInen. of the question, no! any
spproach to one; il MAJ settle Mr. otelinin rights
il lar, land for aught kno~, but rot mine. Wen
my rights are settled, will be party to the record
and it will be known who argued my cause; ard
when Il suit is decided i. viii be decided upon so ne
thing more .ubstaotia than the word shirp, found
in Scotch Dictionary which seems 10 have been the
chief mears BY which bis Honor, Judge Gies, discov-
cred what Goodyear snc Day meant By their contract
OF 1916. have suit pending against Day IN TINS
d!rtrct TO enjou him from any further troubling the
country with this crazy claim ard thst suit will -et'
tie our rights.
Meanwhile Il may be we'll for those who sympathize
with Mr.. Day to remember tina: for fifteen years ne
has been engaged in fighting Mr.. Goodyear and his
censee. and bos always been defeated-never yet
having succeeded in establishing single point, al
though be has at times gained some temporary advan
tage. he attempted to repudiate this very shifrea
goods license which Re now claims under, aud swore
il was void and was defeated He atem, ted to break
down Gocdyears patent and swore it was void, and
WA defeated He attempted to get possession OF
Ctsfees patent wped by ss trustee for G 'odyear
ard his LICENSEES ard which he had before sworn was
void on al appl aton for extension, and brought near
hundred suits on It, and was defeated by decree oil
the Supreme Court referred to in Judge Giles 8
opinion And fitting finale 20 his career Is this at
temp. to stretch his sbrred goods right which ne has
by oath upon oath declared fraudulent and void over
subiect never included 10 1t; and certa end of
his attempt viii be repetition Of his former defeats
The object Of this parade Of 8 decision in all ths
paoers is obvious. 1t is to enable Day to frighten
merchants into paying him something before ne is
erolled BY me the tuit pending agsin,t him; and
take this occasion 70 notify al persons acting with
Day that ,hsu enforce my rights sgsnst then, and
thst they pay him at sheir peril And further give
notice that / viii protect any person taking title
under me from any suit which Day may bring.
Auo e. 1889 WILLIAM JuDsON.
10 TIE Editor Of The ~ T. Tribune.
SIR: Ny client, Mr.. Judson, has shown me copy
Of Tnl TRIBUNE Of SATURDAY last and of his letter to
you en- the subject Of the ndia-rupber tu decided in
Baltimore. was consulted BY Mr. Judson about that
Baltimore suit and upon consideration, it was decided
by hun not 10 interfere with it. ! saw the gentleman
who had it in charge for the defendants, few min
utes, one day, in passing through Baltimore WITH Mr.
Judson to other places an other business but WAS
not informed that any final hearing had been sgreed
to; nor did know whss case was to bs made by
either side. If had known that consented
case had been made up, l should have
advised Mr.. Judson to appear in Court and protest
sgaiI st it, far his rights might be called in qaes
ton; but supposing il to Ire motion to dissolve
an Injunction in which Dir. Jut.on was perfectly In
different to the result, thought it not worth while to
TAX any step in il. All the information had upon
the case when the decision was published, is wha, the
public have, and do not now know wha. papers were
laid before the Judge ror Except from the oPnlon
upon wha, he decided but very important papers
are no, mentioned by the Court conclude that he did
not see them. Very respectfully,
4 N. DiCAER5ON.