, 1873-12-23
THE COURTS.
Decision in the Frazer Patent.
Grease Case.
Interesting Charge by Judge
Blodgett
Suits Against the City...Bankruptoy
Items.
THE FRAZER pATEHT-onEAsE oAsE.

Tho argumonta In tho oaso Of George r. Davis
against John A. packard worc concluded yoster-
day, and tho case given to tho Jury. Tho follow
ing copfous abstract OF Judge D!odgotkH Charge
will give, in very olonr manner, oil tho facts
necessary:
This suit ia brought to rccovcr rcnnlt!es alleged to
Of tic tb!rty.ninth secton of ths %ten law Of July
g. 1870. The section reals follows:
my person shall n any i.anner mark upon any,
not obtained patent, tfto ilae, any Initiation Of
o n9e Ct any ssao who as 9btansa pst9
assigns or legal representatives,, or shall IN
my m.nncr mark uron Or ef'1 to my euel
pe e mors f9 es2, or ay or e. s
import, with intent to initiate or counterfeit tho mark
or lovlce of the ratentce without hayg The iee.sc
s1 T. anstsa!sa ss.ss H. %os ks|sa!:
GMe M tiate. for sSery sassh odet,se 10 poiaity
o ne saa ss ss9 a u go 20 s rsson so IT, sa 0s ss
1asa s.stes M Tic s j 5geSRht s / upon @ ts lat
we:d i%tent, or any VOID importing that tIe saao is
Thf Tho ag"aea M 81 ho satats s ho % oa
ach ofEenss; hut this 1angunge hah l,ce hold by the
sSo'S so a willis ody Ia anssse s n1t iess than
might be thought 10 Imply discretionary
amount tlan Tho sum named minimum Limit yet
tile courts hayc uniformly constructed this caas Of
ataues 10 authorize penalty for thu amount named,
Ii order to mako out tho offenso charged the pain-
tia must provo: Frat, that defendant anixed, Or
artcle described in the declaration. Second, tint
no patent had eyor been Issued to thu defendant,
TIC arolo so marked. Third, that the word
"pacnt" wns affixed to such artlcc BY tho defendant
or Gy hia direction for the purpose Of 1eceiyns tho
cntabo # patent had been applied for i'll tle proper
| tlme and manner by thu inventor.
That, some tlnc in 1855 Mr. Samuel Frazer Of Gaena,
II this State maao a somo osmEeriments m by Wv which e
low tempetatre, s % for the anaaeuro @ % Of reag
taned rattnt fIon, AZ United satss i for az
1n other worla tho ratent s technically aud legally on
tho process and ot upon tho product, Of the dsi'a.
| commenced 10 manufacture aud placa ulon tho mar
het an article composea mainly Of proaced
Sa' Witt ho h., desiana,ed % au ns rrazera m T Patent
Axle Grease" and Which nano ho marked upou tllo
packages, tho peculiar composition Of Which hs pro-
| served anl guarded secret.
This Dtsinehs ne carried On 4nite extensively hrst
III Ills cy IL nsaoeiatioa viii George b. switt and o
ers until tne spring or tho asscr rar Of tho wtner of
1870 -narktns tug packages ~ lase described IT u
aol1 to the defendant his interos. in tho patent
| for the business Of mixing tna oxlIe-Rrcahe'
a a of s or nesry M o WI Who s
been ossoeiated with Frazer in eaid business, for
which TIE dsfendant and his associates paid about tho
Tho patent and the secret formula for making tho
ont Of tho oils aad other aulBtances t being
zer and ills eopartners vas of to, il any, value.
soo1 aftef ol making th!s purshnse tho defend
.n Of under ' tho pssns s of
yo the d %
Company. which waa about tho soh Of April 1870 tho
defendant has owned majority of tho stock. aud has
said corporation has continued to carry Gu tho baa!
ness Of mixing Tho article known rs Frazcts ratont
% 6 aso 4 p%s sf1sa
Frasess Patent Axls-5reapo in Substantially liz
auao s 'ns'r ana % ha nsSssSs
TALLY the same way, Perhaps. practically tho
preeiBo degree q temperatures xe BY tho patent haa
Of resin may testied to BY Of the Witnesses,
have required some signt notifications 4 in tue cn-
@ IN order n to hs hd Of oil
oil Should be diael that It would mako the kind
Of Rreaao which Frazer ad put UPON the markct, and
which tue defendant and hfs Company continued to
II is claimed tho part Of tho rlana that, at the
ne the defendant pNrchaAcd Fuaxcrs interest III this
patent. he was informed hat tho tatent did not cover
project the axlc-grcaae which Frazer had been aA-
ing. II Is also claimed by tue plaintiff that at various
tinies since tho defendant bccamo ntorcstcl in the
buEness he haa admitted substantially. that the pat
1i no: protect tue compound Or grcn'e they were
conflict Of evidence On this point. Tho defendant aso
Insists that all he Inns done ~ connection With tho max
Lag and marking Of ths article has been done a. a. ~
responsible for these aetH hut that the suit should
havo bean brought against the corporation. but Il
Tho principal conro Of lilo business Of ho said 90 u
pany ~ iss Superintendent and Manager, and
M as sayf g IL II Ss sos s1
N tue due course Of their employment aud part Of
their duty, thu defendant ia personally Mble to this
netting under him, unless you shall bceve that such
himself. was done under tho belief that ho or slt
Company lud the right TO the word "patcnt" II
marking tho satd article
the proof showB that tho alticle III question
waa nn1tea with tLe Is, !, word -. nratent" bs
fasoly creai'ng Imposing upon tho public mind tl't
s "5fs ~ ho + Thf
ront rs seems N to To- NO. your sostlon to % tEo es
mony is mainly demanded, all the other aubstantia
facts Geng 'nnny admitted unless 1t DO the numoe'
TLo defendant inafss that while 1t muy aycn bo trus
TINT he had notice. know, that lilo ratent in qucs
DID not specifically cover protect tue comreunt
which hc bus made and marked with the word "pacnt,
b. n ss IaS 1s y ] r # M
p4tensod procers, lie lad the right 10 use tic wore
| "patent" in marking the article nude.
Aud II YOU satisfied from tho evidence TINT tt,t
defendant, IL. good faith, supposed that hc,. o!
the right to use the word "patcnt" !" al II
ha. been sea BY Frazer s;;s and ha associates ~,
process WHICH h. had purchased ,, md naia toro,
him aud tho Company tho right to mark tho wort
Patent upon tie packngea OF the article 80 largel,
composed Of teee olla then the defendant is not llablt
n tts action That u to sny are satIsea fro.r
ceiyed by tho nisconduct Of Frazer ind his asxo
fa, ff4te' swift S,a aud o'heFs into tho sr be'e i
word "patent these packages, ansl that e did to
tended 10 assert what he honestly Thought le Lad tLt
Ftsht to do, then h. y net lsb!s' beau. besaase th'
although tbs defendant may have known tla
tho oils medu nnler thu patent were no
themselves patented, In tho strict and technics
term, and may have known ut the time hs purchases
his Interest that tlese oils woro compounded will
other Ingredients by sccret ptoccsa for making til,
article marked yet snch knowledge IL not necesaaril,
inconsistent with hclief on thu part ut tho defend
ant TINT he Ind tile right to mark ho word "patout