The Petroleum Centre daily record. [volume] (Petroleum Center, Pa.) 1868-1873, 1873-10-07
/, gY9Gg' g'H'E'HEk HHr'H I .XEs. IA
TORPEDO PATENT SUITS.
Roberts VS.. Nicholas Z aver. \,

Esobrrts VS. NiCliOl6SE Ca yer.t
The following ID the decirien rendered Ipsr,
Mciiennar, at May Term OF the Circuit Ccurt N no
above case: NtS is
in TIE Chcuit Court Of the tnited States In srd g..
the Western District of nsylvanhI--E a.,
Robeatsvs Nicho.ss ,Gger. No, IL MAY Tern
1875. I'm Rouil y~sp.i.iS fe
Novsmber sl, lS7s Bill filed and Subpoena i
Sphpena nad no'ice of application for pre,nh
airy injunction s,rv,d. 1s
December IL, 1872 Motion Scr prelinin,- :,
Junction heard, md ne Con-. Leisr duly aavi,ss in in
the premises the injuuc Oh awaldcd Us paved far
and deer, e ieu. s~#
January II, lS73. Injunction issued, and on ho
s9,h day of January indicune4t served personally
and by copy. V
May29 1873 Rula Is ucl for de 'cud Mt ia sso,,
cause whyotaehment should poi i.sus for coutemD,
in violating Injunction and duly scivod
June I'd, 1878 Iiuic for attachment in this ca,c,
came on to be heard, and aftcr argument of counsel
prn and con, the Court being mn advised i, tbo
premises, the Rule is MADE arso'ite and tho spr.
tence ofthe Cont is, that the said d.rtndan. Nic
olas Geyer, be nliiosened in the common jail of
Allcgecny County for aid during the term of t.,
days, and that he pay tie costs Of this ri.cte
ing. 80 ft'- '"' '-.
June I'd, 1873 Ccmnt,nt issued .
The Injunction in this case vai tcr i,ffita,sncn
of the Roberto patent CT No eahtd the Big ig-
en'), for Increasing the ploductyeness of oil well,
The act of Infringement for which the defender.
was committed for contempt, consisted in aicit,
Alexandra HaE:sr in exploding torpedoes in Of
wells being the same act of infringement for whic,
Lamar was also committed in :he case No. g. No
vembcr Term, 1865, as before stated
The Court Mckcnnan, j, ter delivering his
opinion in the Lamar case, proceeded to, seu;elc,
Nictoas Geyetfor contempt, and delivered the fl
owing oral opinion
LIN tie case Of Nicholas Geycr charged with N
same ofeBse, am erirely sati~f d that there wa.
hnid present, in the Eeals well ut least AS linn,
intimdted to The counsel in tie course Of He orog.
mem', tie presence 95 futd in tie aseiL wheAc de.
sired or not, is an infringement of The patcnt q,da
0reach ?f the injunction ofhe Court
mr. ROBERTS, by his patent uses a. one of the pvin
o'iai elements OF his inwntion fluid tamplng, and
wherever there is fluid sufficient in we'll. a, fla
, ..me o the explosion ofa torpedo, to operate as
,amplhg. whether II gets there naturally or is plt
tuere aftlfcialiy his patent il il fringed THIS WAS
c!esliy the case in resardt 70 the Rcals well
,, but MIR Geyer seems to have ,heqn r.isled hv
, naiiar, VINO tod him that he merely wanei to
maze maze an experiment and dc not tLink. thi. be-,
punished. " 'e 'e'S s''e'ey
lie also i adrdged guilty ofcontcn,t and oder
20 10 pay the costs of this proceeding and Undergo
dn nm llttso'lleht In the county jai for ten days
suHN tns VIII he the Ia 4 Of th Sc cases: heciuse
" .he mater comes to our roticr ogan ntwii he
.",sfs'h' 10 imposc such punishment as Will tend
:? MAKE The decree of the Court eBectua
.L .inne Film.