The national Republican., 1866-12-15
Ths Csurss.

= - T.r,.n.. n. ,s ,ess
. On motion Of Hon. williaa II. Stewart, Samuel
D. Smith, Esq., Of New Jersey, was sAmittsd an
attorney and eouussllor Of this court.
Of California, was admitted an attorney and coun.
No, 100. Ths brig Sarah Starr, her tackle, &e.,
sppsllsnts, ". The United States. Appeal from
tie Circuit Court Of the United States for the
Southern district Of New York.
On motion Of Nj. Carlisle, one Of the counsel for
the sppelsnts, and with the consent Of the Attor-
nsy General, Mr.. stanhsry, this appeal was dis.
missed at the costs Of the appellants.
No. IS. Frederick 3. sickl.s, appellant, VI.
Bailey n. Rvsns. Appeal from the Circuit Court
Of the United Ststss for the district Of Mssssshu
sstts. On motion Of Mr stoushton, Of counsel for
the appellant, this appeal Nu sfarmsd. with costs
No. 70. Ths Union Paoiho Manufacturing Com.
psny, sppsllsnts, ". John d. Lownsbury, ct l
The srgumsnt Of this cause was eommsnesd BY Mr..
Keller for the Appellants, and continued BY Mr..
No. sss a %.sS.i % pi I.,,, :. al, plaintiff. in or
rof Va Virginia Levy, Of a. In error to the Court
Of Appeals Of the State Of Now York. On motion
Of Mr. Blair Smith, one Of the counsel for the do.
fsadasts ia srror this writ Of error was doskstsd
and dismissed With costs. rf-.-. ~. ! ..L
The Patent Lsvs- WiHtAs Wovfhisssnsss of
fks Invsniion incalsdass tie Patent p Erfsnaon-
TAs Uaien Man9faetnring Company, Plaist1s
in ESyov, ~. john ID. Louns6nry, ct ai.-This is
an appeal from the Circuit Court for the District Of
connsetieut diminishing the bill upon the merits,
With costs.
Ths oomplainsnts seek . psrpetusl injunction
against The rsspondsnts restraining than from In
fringins certain patent relating to the. manufao.
turs Of felt cloth. This patent upon which the
bill rests, was originally issued to one John Ar.
mold, on the 18th day Of July 1899, and purportsd
TO secure to him ss his invention certain new and
useful improvement In the machine fer forming
the web Of cloth, Of wool, hair, or other suitable
substance. without spinning or weaving. This
1843. No effort sppears to have been made BY the
inventor to hays II extended. He survived the
patent nearly Ave years. and died on the 18th day
Of Nay, 1848 No application was made during
bis lifetime to have the expired patent revived or
renewed. nor Is there any evidence In the case that
hs expected or wished II to DO renewed. In Janu.
sry, l849, about eight months aftsr the death oi
the inventor . joint. petition was made BY George
@. BishoP and Peter N. Morgan 0he latter being
the sdmastrator Of The deceased inventory for the
renewal and extension Of this patent, and also oi
another patent, which had been granted t. the Do.
This petition was supported from time to time
before . COMMITTEES Of Congress with perseverance,
and on the 28th Of March, 1854, an act was passed
rsviying and extending both patents for the tern
Of fourtssn years from that date. On the 9Th o.
April. 1854 the revived patent was assigned to th'
y we'll - 70 the patent granted to Arnold and
Bishop, and which was also extended BY the SAINT
| aot Of Congress. In January, 1855, the complain
ants surrsndsrsd the patent Of 1899, and on th'
18th Of March, 1856, received . reissue.
The hrst patent clearly describes the Invention
to be that Of machine, or An organised mechanism
for crossing the nbrss Of the material Of which olol
| IL made in such way q to produce the same Il
long or short pieces. This Is all that either th,
spseihcaton or claim, or both combined, set forth
~ the invention. The invsntion, therefore, - 90
forth, begins and ends with this organised msohan
ism. No process Is described or hintsd at inds.
pendent Of the mere function Of the machine or, q
most, the mechanical process wrought BY the mo
| ohanism.
Tho rs-issued patent makes further and dstine
claim q an independent ground for monopoly, Il
wit: "dsposting the weft In separate sheets, sdg'
| to edge upon the continuous sheet Of warp, sub
stsntl.lly IN the manner and for the purpose de
soyibsd."
ThiS Is . claim for the process which, 1t Is In
sisted, wss worked BY the original machine. Their
10 svidsnc. that thj: process Is y 10 called va
osiysd By him ss capable :" Of being wrought b!
| any other means than the machine or original mo
ohanism Invented BY Arnold In 1922"
This bill is founded upon the rs.issusd patent
and II becomes vital injury whsther or not thi
oontsndsd then the suit fails, and so II was he'll
below. II Il 10 valid and the respondents infringe
then they should bs snjoinsd, and are liable s
to BE-.
Ths following, from the opinion Of the court be
low viii present sufficiently the case Of the defend
ants here: s....
The patent Of 1899, both in its original form an
that Of the reissue Is invalid because 10 did nc
and does not describe practical invention Th
conceptions Of the inventor In all the forms In whic
he attempted to reduce them TO practice, prove
useless and abortivs until 1886, when the joint II
vsntion Of Arnold Bishop was made. Tho proc
Of the utter worthlessness Of the invention origin
ally msds BY Arnold 10 to be found In the svidsnc
produesd before the court from the files Of Congress
and upon which that body acted In granting the rs
nswal. This evidence was procured and pressnte
to that body by these complainants and IL present
conclusive proof to my mind that the original "in
vsntion was incomplete" end after having obtains
an aet of Congress extending the two patents as on
iny.nton, on the express ground that the arst lon
was no complete invention within the meaning Of th
patent act II Is too late for those complainants
set up the contrary fact, and seek by injunction
protset that which they have solemnly declared
bs worthless. The report Of the COMMITTEES recon
msnding the passage Of the act says; "No incoI
vspsnce can result to the public or injury to an
individuals by the renewal and extension OF the hr
patent, because the invention was imperfect, and
( working machine could not be constructed excoI
} In connection with what Is covered BY the sseon
patent" This conclusion Of the committee 10 sui
ported BY evidence presented by them, and whie
. was adduced on the trial of this cause After Il
Legislature has acted upon this conclusion ar
passed the statute In question for the benefit
these claimants by granting them rights adverse
the public and 10 individuals It would III oompo
. with the duty Of court Of equity 10 aid them
reversing the facts, and thus working the very har
+ ship which they hsd satisfied Congress could new