New-York tribune., 1866-12-07

eh.rsbe With knowledge OF s state Of the art IN relation to the
s1sS 9 .s." upon thai SSs Ss Soud " inS extent
bsqds may Dc $ & Il spsfsn he l. SSsdsd to csry
into effect scientific way the purpnse snd object q The psitnre
5 "a S s expert 20 he snsr
nerroeoy Judging from my knowledge o he state OF tne
he observes has been previously psotsed mechsnie u d
Iected 20 % seP or59 OoGy TOu @ @ 'Is E would sSea
bsa o pat upon place probably by driving end while no.
In detail BY experts the part Of the dG'ndan whose aen
~ s fe srt was familiar to Chamber, in 1912 He observes
that he determines dsmeer Of the interior Il the rns a com com
pared with Of The tube .lo p'ncle ' Che Ia"
Of expansion Of wrought ron ,,.b
Interior dat st viii not when cold, tbe rie 90
the bnd bit when heated 70 The proper Temperature E
eoalae, w.a & & &SoAS& XIV no WYE 20 y,B is s latter "a to
Ia m eonacon We may refer to the evidence o. n. comp,nsn,
h subject He says he led to tL q1aty iOo3iS part
dmelerl strained ll00 q s enst may Ve con-
,dered having reaches about the n Of 10 esiety hined
than that produces merely permanent eonSauou =,
Another question branch ofth should be noticed IL
icia as ' q f the siP T tSF of t F Saa
correspond ye5 a.9iy with ne thsse q we SS % % & bes n
rings placed barrel ote Firth in the way we hsve de-
o aeoosy 10 follow . tsp. would So corresponding cmP,
the barrel and dnon Of The hoop with hoss
aona strength gwen would 'sem to DO ianes 1a ace s5 S
underand him admits Of that hoop, Of hs ,ls 70,
placed BODY ofth thickness tee otswn Noo
properly ,pped produce effect Of compression and dten9n
contemplated in the @ y H. ne S ops ~ va, ,.s
bored TIE witness stated that he did not consider tie
I
Now whether firth ledge Of the Barlow law e not y
h' construction Of the met the eaae' tee!e
absence OF th, knowledse cannot affect the question
& aSS @ SfniSSn h @ we @% 10 @% 6 cross it, Toe question Do yo
S9s'TSsd s & o 3 D SUdy and h6oP be
the dsmsr Of the body more Or e'," An.ws.
do not limited TO tho difference IN diameter Of pouy
and hoop Any difference OF diameter thet Wogd oane
the beneficial result contemplated would thn pc "hn te 10
tcrpon gwen whether less seems 70 me thh t'
Of the patent and that The Invention cannot 90
the precise amount Of difference tsed ohet"he an eva
| sion of the patent would bo and unavoidable 49,
shows that the statement on the onerence IN
the pent not msen and vii not ena tne
nuads All that essential usep Is reference 70 the pps
expsnsby Of wrought iron and the extent 70 wh
Inay carried by heat without weakening ih tensy
This wopd sufficient to enable tue integeh hecuac 70
suc tie and protect the invention from evasion OF IN
good deal has been said BY the experts the proofs and BY
Argument respect the absence Of direction IN e
specification o the patent finish Of the work TO b. done
@ M sTjpPs ~ P q Psb boep % We DO not thnk dis iam
titled much con1eraon Is the business OF th. hG
order 10 make proper hoops TO the barrel Il may ven 20
len 10 tho nteeeu mechanic and TO the duty that devoV 'n pun
Workmsnke manner and 80 $50 p0oo He
ptepded bv inventor II within his t The inventor u,
necessarily mechanic snd oenumes very uch epehos'
upon the m OF the latter hs invention practical
fDo he whole without pursuing the further COM
concuson That In OF the state OF the arr Al
% he Improvement 10 the construction Of iron with
wrought hoops ns cmed by the complainant viii bs found
gTes M ~ he entered for the defendant dsmisIng the bill
For complainant Nj Keller and Judge Curtis for defend
| ant Mir Cozzens and Mr.. GfOd.
LIABILITY OF COMMON CARRIERS PoR TBANsHIPPED GOODS
! -ACTs OF PUBLIC ENEMIES.
| Thomas W Kennard agt Ben Holiday
This case reported yesterdays TRIBUNE summed up
Yesterday The Court in charging the Jury said that the point
Tor them 20 decide was whether under the circumstances Of the
case the defendant had used the and diligence ia protect
ing the property ntrusted 70 him which u reasonable he
shoud use ana which was required OF him carrier
Tie jury found for plaintiff for The full amount claimed with
inereS a2 49, The Court ordered stay OF proceeding