Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1870-04-08
THE COURTS.

carried OF the little girl and attempted TO
commit upon her the crime charged; bruised
her person, and communicated disease 10
her. The Jury were absent but q few
minutes, and returned verdict OF guilty.
The court sentenced the convict TO lmpris-
onment for Ave years In the Albany penl-
tentlRry. tN
randolph Coyle, indicted for an assault
with intent 10 kill sonusy A. Webb on the
25th Of January last. He was found guilty
OF assault only, and was sent TO jail for six
months.
NO VERDICT IN FLoID's CASE.
Tho Jury In the case OF Floyd, charged
with tho murder OF Dounelly, In George
town harbor, last August, remained out all
night, unable TO ogree upon a verdict. They
were called Into court about 2 o'clock, and
still being unable 10 agree, were discharged.
IL 10 understood they stood nine for convle-
tion Of granddaughter and three for acqulttal.
Adjourned.
CIRoUIr CoURT-Ohltr. ristics Cartier
This court was engaged as follows yesterdays
Busoy vs.. Moore. This Is the fourth day
Of the trial Of this action, which IL for dam
ages for an alleged violation Of the plain
ufs patent for making out Of bone dust,
treated with sulphuric acid and mixed
guRno and salt, fertlllzlng composition,
known as "Busey's Excelsior Guano." The
defence Is that the composition was not at
the date Of the patent q new idea, and that
the combination Of tho Ingredients Of tho
patented fertilizer does not produce special
effect which Is patontablo.
THE LAW or PATENT FHRTTLIzERs.
The Court instructed the Jury as follows
That to entltle tho plaintiff to recover In
this case, the Jury must ind that he was
the frat or original Inventor Of the compo-
sitlon claimed In the patent, or II from the
evidence tho jury shall and that the ma
terials enumerated In plaintiffs patent had,
prior to the frat combination thereof by the
plaintiff, been admlxed and combined by
any other person In substantially the same
proportions, aud had been publicly used and
sold by such third person, the patent is void,
and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
II, &C., the jury fud that after said lnyen-
tlon, as claimed by tho patentee, aud for
more than ten years prior TO his application
for patent, the said compound was public
ly used aud sold by any other person, with
tho knowledge and consent Of the plaintiff,
or by the plaintiff himself, for the purpose
Of trade and profit, the patent lie Of none
effect, and plaintiff is not entitled to recover,
Notwithstanding they may hayo found that
he was In fact the flrst aud original Inventor
Of the compound and fertilizer, as claimed
In his patent.
1.-THE Jury ind from tho evidence that the
substances enumerated in the patent were
all Well.known In commerce, aud their ef-
fects as fertilizers also we'll known prior to
the date OF tho invention claimed BY the
plaintiff, and shall further prove that the
combination Of said substances, as set forth
In the said prtont, does not produce q new
and previously unknown effect on the soil By
reason Of their being compounded together,
but, on the contrary, that In said compound
each substance acts on the soil In no other
or different manner than the same would set
u applied separately or By itself, then the
patent is void, andth Plaintiffs not entitled
TO recover.
II the Jury ind that the compound manu-
featured and Bold by the defendants con-
taIned any other substance than those emu.
msrated In the patent, and that by the add
ton Of such other substance different
compound was made producing q substan-
TALLY different result, the use aud sale of
such different compound Is not an infringe
ment OF such letters patent.
1. That the patent Of the plaintiff ls priR1a
.faeis evidence Of the novelty and utility Of
and unless 1t 10 proved by Affirmative evil
dence that the fertilizer compound described
In the patent had been known or used prior
to the Invention thereof by the plaintiff, or
that tho same ID wholly useless as q fertll-
IEer, the Jury must find that the plaintiff
was the original and frat inventor OF said
compound, and that the Same is q useful
compound for fertiliElng purposes.
3. That the plaintiff had an unrestricted
right TO make use Of and sell, and allow
others 70 use and sell, the fertillzlnR com
pound described In hls patent for ten years
prior 10 making an application for the patent
without detriment to the validity OF said
patent, and also had q right TO use and to
furnish others to use experimentally the
said compound q reasonable time prior TO
said two years, for the purpose OF ascertain.
ing the best proportion for combining the
Ingredients and the utility ofthe compound
as fertilizer without forfelting his rlght 10
a patent; and II In 90 introducing the com
pound into use experlmentally he Incident
ally received some compensation from those
to whom he furnished 10, that will not Vitiate
his patent, provided the primary and only
object was experimental, 10 test the qualify
or utility Of the compound as fertilizer,
and not for the purposes OF trade and profit.
1.-THE Jury End, &C., that the plaintiff was
the original and frst inventor Of the COM
pound described In his patent, and that the
Same 10 O useful compound for fertlllzihg
purposesi that the manufacture aud sale OF
q compound composed Of the same ingre-
dents In such proportions as will produce
the same result, substAn TALLY Ia an Infringe
ment Of his patent. although another inglo-
dent may have been added TO said last nlen-
toned compound not materially changing
Its effect a. fertilizer.
The case was argued by Messrs. Bradley
and CoombS for the plaintiff, and Merrirk
and Burr for the defendant, and submitted
to the Jury. 4 I... arIaff ID .r..r
The following Judgments by default Were
entered by the attorneys named schenck
Va, Roman, Richmond Hooe a Bro. 70.
Hall, Bradley, Thompson n Block W.. Brown
g. WallArd, Cottrellj W. II. Brown & Bro.
We. Brown q Wallard, same, Lilly q Bro.
vs.. Brown q WallArd, samei Lanohtenburg
W. Plauti TenneY W. Cursor etai., Jackson,
aud many others. r-E
White vs.. Baltimore and Ohio rAllrOadJ
settled. .aH.. .i.n g....... ... ..t.ff H.
TeW Va. Bartlstt & Hayden. Temporary
Injunction until April 10. .Tr
mo- ~. rs f CAsHs TODAY. ......r ..
Tho following cases are assigned for trial
to-dAyi Nos, 14S, 84S, B15, 3p5, 8s5, l46,
"a appeals) $50, $50 SppealS) 1s9, 1875, 1Ds,
234, 3i4, 80 and 2S2. h md. 1.,,f D.. 80. ~
Adjourned. ru... .rr .g.f. .
SUPREME CoURT OF TnE USITRD sTkTEs-
Thursday, April I, 1s70,-No. 1903. Joseph
w. Hancox, appellant, vs.. The steamship
SyrRcuse. The argument Of this cause was
continued By Mr.. L. O. Benedict, OF council
for the Rppellees, and concluded by Mr..
Hoar, Attorney General, for the appellant.
/. No. 100. The steamboat George Washing
ton, appellant, Va. Ann Cayani n
No. $50. The. steam ferry boat d. 8. Greg
DRY, appellant, vs.. Ann Cavan.
The argument Of these causes was com
menced BY Mr.. o. Donohue, Of counsel for
the appellant, on No. 169. ..
AAta,..,.a .,.NII - "A 4