The Iowa transcript. (Toledo, Tama County, Iowa) 1858-1866, 1861-05-02
Important Patent Suit.

A suit was brought some SIX months
ago in the United States Circuit Court
at Cincinnati, for infringement on the
Marquis d Emerson Patent for a Mole
Plow. The Plaintiffs were Coleman
4 Willis Hays, assigness Of the Patent
for Paint township in this county, and
the defendants were Frederick Sulson,
William Tway, Michael Cleaver and
Jacob Cleavcr, who have been using a
Mole Plow made by Moses Bales Of
London, Madison Co, Ohio. The suit
was tried last week, and verdict was
rendered 10. the Plaintiffs, and against
the defendants for 5000 damages and
nearly $500 costs. The following charge
Of Judge Leavitt to the Jury will show
the points involved:
"This Is an action brought against
these four defendants for the infringe
ment of a Patent granted to A. & 4. G.
Marquis 4 c. Emerson, Feb. 10, 1856,
for All Improvement in the mole of
draining plow. The right Of the Pat
entces in this invention for Paint town
ship, Faycttc Co., Ohio, has passed to
the plaintiffs in this action by various
assignments which are in evidence.
There is no controversy as to
the sufficiency Of the patent or Of
the specifications. 1t is the testimony
Of Mr.. Knight that those specifications
are remarkably clear and exact. The
claim of the patent is in these words:
''What we claim as our invention and
desire to secure by letters patent is the
peculiar shape of the mole, which cna-
blcs its forward movement to form
subtcranean perforation, whose top and
side will be smoothly and dcnscly com
pressed and whose bottom will be left
almost entirely uncompressed substan-
TALLY as herein set forth. We also claim
the tail \ of the mole Of such shape and
position that it will serve to close up
the slit cut by the mole shank (B) in
forming pcrtovation, and also, serve
to lead the mole upwards to the surface
Of the ground as soon AS the beam (E)
is allowed to turn on its axis substan-
TALLY as herein set FORTH This is
claim for the two improvements III this
mole plow and this either Of them is in
tringed b. the defendants by the use Of
pillow substantially the same. The
first defence is that the patent is with
out utility. An invention must be Of
some utility, but courts are not par,icu-
lar as to the degree. do not under
stand the Patcnlecs to claim that the
tail will close up the slit to the top Of
the drain. may say, however, that If
the jury are satisfied that the defend.
ants have used the invention for
smoothing Substantially like it they are
cstoppcd from denying its utility. The
<cconI defence is that the invention is
void for want ofno,elty. 1t is claimed
that the invention has been been long
known and used III foreign country.
This itself would not invaliiate the in
vcntion, unless it were described in
some printed publication. Two such
Observation-Disclosures Encyclopedia
Of agriculture rs Stephens Book on the
farm are offered in evidence in the
present case. It is for the jury to say
whether the plows described in this
book are substantially the same as that
patented to Marquis & Emerson. Mr..
Knight says they are not, and do not
seem to be constructed upon the same
idea as plaintiffs for they provide for
the entry OF the water into the top in
stead Of the bottom of the drain. The
third defelce is that the defendant
mole docs not infringe the plaintiff s.
If the jury find that the defendants
have used mole, The same in substance
whether its form be tho same or not)
as plaintiffs, then they have infringcd.
The experts have stated that there is
no substantial difference between, and
that the principles Of operation is the
same. The question is whether in both
the same principles have been brought
into requisition, and upon this | appre-
bend the jury will have no difficulty in
coming to the conclusion. Finally, If
the jury find this invention new and
useful, and that it is infiinged by the
defendants, they will give rs damages
the benefit which defendants have de-
rived from the use OF this mole and in
doing t!is they may take into consil-
Grafton the license price, and the ex-
penses Of plaintiffs in liiigating these
questions. Leo & Fisher were the
plaintiffs Attorneys, and Charles Fox 4
Richard NJ. Corwine Esqr's. were coun-
sci for defendants.