New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-06-21

the latter establishment, they found lad named vii
liam Berria1, sn employee of the establishment o.
M.s-r.. Psckhan & Co., who rss apparently frigh.
eted ard confused al their appearance Finding Epor
his person small quantity az gold dust which ws'
identified as toe property Of Peckham Co., B=i;iaH
wa: mn edisely arrested, AFTER which he confessed
that he bad from tice time been il the habit Of tax
ing articles Of jewery from the establishment Of Messr
Pcckhar s Co. ard giving them to B-euswet'er wbs,
he said, had ius.isated him. 4 young named
Charles Londenberger, sho was engaged in Bnrus
~etters Office, also taken into custody. TIE
premises were then ove1hauled, snd abou, $50 worth
of watches and eTey supposed to have been stolen,
were gathered in basket and taken to tie City Hal
Police Court where it was spread upon table and
inspected None WAS identified however, as the
property of Peckhsm & Co. The two prisoners were
committed By Alderman Brady for examination a. 10
O'Clock t-dsy.
THF IsvFyroR OF THE SEWING MAcEISE.-In no.
t:cng the death Of Waiter Hunt the other day we in
adverenty styled him the inventor Of the sewing ma
chine Mr. Hunt was the Inventor of q sewing ms
chine in 1879 or 1884, but after long experimenting
continued through the year 1876 by himself and
others, Il was given up as practically ce,stul,
and he never took out patent for IT,
Mr.. Elias Howe, the inventor of the sewing ma
chine, under Bhose patent al the principal makers
nov man lfscturs, commenced the invention of his
achine In 1910 II was not until after the perseyer
ing labor of six years, struggling with poverty all the
while that Mr. Howe succeeded in perfecting his IN
vention: il was patented in 1876. During the next
five years il worked its way into public favor. His
petert having by this time become valuable was in
fringed, and he was compelled to assert it through
the Courts Ofsix suits instituted but three de-
Tended. In all these the deleuse set up against the
validity Of DR. Howe's patent that Mr.. Hunts
machine was similar, and in all it was decided that
there was nothing in Mr. Hunts invention to inyal
date Mr.. Howes claim.
The last opinion in these cases, that of Judge
Sprague. given February -, 1851, IL the Circuit
Court OF Mas scbusett-, IS explicit and decisive, and
it hs. been acquIeseed IN. Judge Sprague considered
Mr. Hunts machine as merely experimental He
thought that 4" Mr.. Hunt had made ingenious una
" chile, in some respects Ike Mr.. Howe's; that it
/" had needle similar to Mr.. Howe's operating upon
" vibrating arm and going through the cloth, then
:" shuttle that passed through the loop made by the
" need.ethread, thus making stitch by drawing it
up or into one side of the cloth, somewhat like Mr..
Howes." But be decided that j, was never any
no evidence that any work was ever done
on it except by way Of experiment aud
that the testimony showed that there were
difficulties about ii which could never be got over.
The reedlc worked constantly, but nobody could tell
when the shuttle would work. This they were not
able to remedy, and 30 the machine was given mp.
" 1t was only experiment. and ended in experiment,
and was laid aside rs unsuccessful experiment
With regard to Mr.. lIowes invention, be says
There is no evidence in this that leaves a
shadow of doubt that for all the benefit conferred
"upon the public by the introduction of sewing
machine, the public are indebted to Mr. Howe
Again, he ssys: Now who has promoted this useful
art, Who is it, in this csse, that comes within the
nearing of the Constitution-tha, to promote the
useful arts, Congress shall have power to secure to
inventors their inventions Unqucs;ionably, Mr.
&" Howe, and 10 other person.