New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-07-04

:s Gq %s .S sss @ more I 0 sra l:@ the S
cot the composition Be Teeed number Of times hssvps
That the plaintiff. rely upoo testimony Of Mr. Resell M
Martin and Mr. Baker practical printers which in substance satsns
for msns quite largely engaged the business And they
tel the t the old rollers composed Of se and oasses roen
get hard would ck short tine require frequent washing were
subject 20 the nhaenes OF e climate sere not as durable those
the plaintiff: 7susb!s Tie jury have also toe
high tndng their profession who evidence clearly to the
eesne pFoPe.s. o,'h coRoiO won The stand ,,, Mn
cumP for The purpose Of proving want Of s,h,y IN this nvsnom
M Crmp state. ths he used the position, plaintiffs:
r.t rollers obtained from them the best be bad ,sn .t
ar determine hsherhe h ones being good as he
% some defs preparation WORKING Of che cOmposiou
some fault IL TIE invention Itself Thai struck ne
question Of utility 5gt that thai Is matter Tor the Ja ene" "
That, the this sompossn and the effect q acerns
upon H. the defendants called chemist M sehuna9 evidently re
acquainted with his en who tells The jury what gcene
and what discovered how extracted OF made
agree entirely with the c,ssr Chemist, upon The stand
That seems TO be ced part OF the defense that fyer
inc Is substitute in the composition, for r=oasse and Tel
cSs ~ p, 0. Iha % y gss S Mr. ha
That they tell the jury Why iii ho 'aechaine matter
upon then tb. question for y to de-
eini,e ~ - S INVENTION s 20 b s s the lOf MN
in This Is Who the inventor Of this composition
Th. q th copoiion know and IN before /. The
anything By the s ns not ansy v
The inquiry for the jury IT, Was this
composition sne gycerne and ehrne maercombned ia
used before had been put into acta use before was done y the
,hs, subject 10 that inventor begin to
experiment sad although from his mrs; srPs'o ne hsr
without making application for pA,enf when he thinks be pas
ION Patent the ss effect Of that patent
s ss ai Il. sS nS n Obtained @ result in
continued his and did no, sDD for patent Sn ba a .b
patent vii date bach to the time Of his hrs, inventions although
beo. him That he must prove he was the first
oS ThS .eed 70 P,e sse b | e ave viii no. allow
b .ns and step in and deprive him Of tho dement's OF
part Of the defnse claimed that the uss Of n
there /. al known long be-
bosy ant 70 :, Y a s nn whu @ years because
from other But r ,es 20, 90
with this That the question ior the jury IA was eOnDns
ue n.fa practical result. Fir was that then end Of
the and the jury vii md for the defendants ,.,
10 daren, producing different result, vet they were no
u was ever Produced until plaintiff combined them in
on. produce this result, then he . entitled to h patents
hes ths the informed that ycerne
ss the 10 81 soys NJ Moran telling
Of ycsns would keep ne ssc O sni Of w
Francis date back 1861 snd he used in 1850 fh.i the eesIo
he g.sd Of sne and lass ana ,n o
had occasion ycerne all de wanted Tor MS
toy, bard rather thsn soh substance r.,
in lass s asa isss si S w s1i% Splinter used
a oG i S not a.s sa the yoens sy
with without tbs. give. ss 1rSs Pep01aSa
have been put the stand S On, of Chemists .sa .ua
same prscca tel the jury that such composition as be .ate
position made Of equ two poouds o.e. 20 one
pound Of glue and the couposon o plaintiffs do,o b
mat like TO the sotness required there mas
G II i Bonsae .sse. that q.
proportions near " he could measure ths~ he a 70
That, uppo.ur this. this testimony Of Blo~ets csr.s back
nd
the Mr. Francis. the will whether these nsrca
,nch pr.i a.ef result is csmed By pn, and TESTIFIED
% here That The gy S n os tns
BY Mr. Bomsie would have had in ne od tope k r
the PLAINTIFF patents they bsd been Combined in such pro
Pqon:s would produce eea Pnei, , 5.1 ,n st . con
r.dic,ed by Pan-r Foreman Of Harper bros B,meks
glue sycerne nd mosses Pattcner denies that be did 80
plaintiffs further claim that this could not have pse core
80 .,Iy a. boIsa1ia ,p o. b sbi co were In there ou
prior TO his making piece OF composition In February
now tina, the defendants they have patent Thst this wa.
EXCLUDED offered technical grounds bat Aierssfd wa.
ntIodused and IN TIE sAse f9E al PURPOSE, s" Tsss
there evidence tending bow that defendant. made in, ~ .s
n pants. pst.n when his No-sp-
s~ a. 1865 and ay, He inquired Of why be
1 not % on: pant & making a 1, nsv TSs the cour
ihn, did give 70 that and that 4 Is Tor the Jury q
filth supposed could mixing rollers with this Hs,ers
That without spending % on sf aT, sa9a q & Have
,e deiendan,or THE pon, Of novelty the burden Of proc.
prove that the pantn. ased nsehto
have they ahed the jury that the pntu Wa no.
Of this eombina'n Ihat NOT eh1usn "a
known besrei they mu SHOW nat
been reduced 10 practice 90 tns tnose
vino used could Themselves obtained pstent thsy
clsimed L. A.. A.. q.
vinr want Of novelty e the plaintiff that he not
The aud that the dndnt or any one ese wAs %
practical then the jury WIZ
md Nh. patents void verdict for the deiendant
ON II the satisfied that the pinth
and shat useful inyeouon tue
That these the only two quesohs 70
upou- he IL
That question of damages OF no ooueqsenco 10 NJ
have brought their cut % Wy ns
dty q the patsus pnd that alone They otns ABOUT We
And therefore, the jury returned verdict io
the PLAINTIFF ~. -, IL,
dans and Mr. Campbell
The Tribune Enlarged.