The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-09-23

THE TORPEDO PATENT CASE
Important DeesIrn aI, in in ss United States orcuit

DeeIsIpp SaIS, In IN s United States Circuit
T E a. L. Roberts vs. The Reed Torpedo Company ct al
in iii s. case ipyqyed the exclusive right torpedOes
% So wells has been gEeat by lowering into
powder OF nitro gycerne, and then exploding the BY
which weight SaS dPoppsd d From Sn the the top the
It was established By proofs the case that most
Ro o Pd & been % in the oil By
The Pisnt Thus in the E1reRs % s We which D. was pro
dnd0s dEsdns only three barrels day Roberts torpedo
day Hyner was ncTessed fTom o 30 barrels day
from barrels per day farr ffs Momssts"3 s well
Sn % barrels day. Keystone well from 10 to 200
RGsa e se sS 0Hy few Of VI
to the use of the torpedo admitted by defendants
After
with former agent Of Roberts named MSrston and
S&e oeane 1 96es object
low n pS wS TO 10 MAKE ss ana sell o oil men P
s IN & f gS G 5 %aS By Rs9f S %
were infringing the Rsberts patent but insisted that it
hc y0 by % T6 s Es 6s hss SOas
cessui exPerimenter who had abandoned his torpedo
% w Rft'das to defeat the
Charles NJ keT sy YSEs Sew aon
George Harding D"A9"e'i 0hr'S' Oh Pi''S0urs anu
Judge GTer Sa yesterday y delivered the following opinion
granting a perpetual injunction:-
OPINION.
As ! write with difficulty can only state the concu-
sons to which my mind has come after careful examina.
The complainant has exhibited a patent dated 25th
April 1855. This is primo Jaeie evidence OF good title
and puts the respondents the burhen of that the
need not repeat remarks in the of Goodyear
aordinga rule of decision which applies clearly to the
AS the infringement of the patent admitted the only
question Will be as to the validity OF companants patent
T after speculation had been reduced to practice
ana after repeated experiments, that the complainant
prejudice
his gGgG ON e fnd NE public tst
utility and value, and when his genius and patient
PFe Sd@ped ueoessu 5s and Reed Wo
Ras SfS mde on The % @ subject @
right to the and after purchasing one or mSre
yember 1871 for patent for substantially the
patent 9d on e 5 % So snd
month the formed themselves into company
the purpose Of prating Che complanans invention and
% & g the P TbPenSe 0 Injection ana thus fer9Hd him
mnary injunction very properly granted by the District
Let decree be entered for complainant for perpetual
r. O. GR1ER, Circuit Judge
Note The passage referred by Judge arer in his
former decision Wallace, 29. adopted applicable
"lt usually the case when any valuable discovery
made any new machine of great utility has besn iu
to that subject asy that many persons have
and mecSancians may have in me- sure antepatad
in their their speeulatons the possibility Probability
ma unsuccessfu tried CON ing very near vet
nothing beneficial The Invention wheG perected may
truly be said to be the eninanE point OF many expert
may have proted indirectly the expert
claim share OF the honor the profit Of the successful
when m ash h %
when that discovery has been perfected by patient and
or maebne has been thus prodased Which,
public benefactor and entitled to patent.
yet When genius and patient have at
ing some valuable invention or discovery how seldom it
specnlators swinders and pra rob him the profits
Every who did did not
very near making discovery claims it. Every
who invent Improvement its FORM claims
or Banosard or %ooawor6 to prove that
this is the usual history of every great discovery or in
THE another chapter to this long and
Court Of Quarter SessiOns-AIIson, P.J.
Andrew Simmons was convicted of the charge of receiv
& oSP S % g9Sds Sd @ guilty @ lyle Th of S
lard balls and valued 2s stolen from the office Of
two days afterwards vas offered for prisoner 70
explanation of the in which the property to
house With intent to steal He twas seen to
being absent from the city and when arrested was
found hayS ksSs and jimmy his
aS ssag T e & G s esed Rn a he
street wharf, upon the arrival Of train from Atlantic
@ ii Re eiS p
of with it, but was soon caught He had lawyer tc
Titnesses to Ts With Sc
plcity and earnestness of upright man placed IL
such position, he explained that after having
worked at a stone quarry Easton he
down to the city and at Camden met old friend
who kept tavern there they several drinks together
which intoxicated him; then walked the Vine street
ferry and crossed tins sde by mistake he took
this ladys vaise instead of his neither knowing wha
he doing intending anything wrong In conse
quence of this innocent he lost his yalise
purse containing 1925, and thrown into prison HC
said he man, who had labor daily for the
support of his family, and only wished be allowed
out and resume work if he could find employment Upor
the faith of the mans truth the jury rendered verdict
not guilty.
Mary Cooper and Mary Gasky were charged with the
larceny of two feather beds, which it alleged the
stole from the house they lodged in, aud pawned The
pawn ticket for the beds found upon of them
Each made statement in her defense throwin
all the oense upon the other and
knowledge of the affair. The jury found them guilty
William johnson, colored convicted of the Larceny
of purse containing $1O The prosecutor lost his mo
the street. but could not how. The
rested the purse found upon him.
Frank Jones, convicted of stealing three pairs
pants belonging to David Shelmyer. He took them iron
Shemyer's oc ginRs while he away business Th
andady however, detected him and secured his arrest
HORROR.
|