The Portland daily press., 1875-10-11
THE WAR OF THE BURNIsHERs.
An Important Patent Case.

The case of Joseph p. Bass of Bangor, VS..
John M. Peck of Portland, which has been on
trlal IN the Circuit Court of the United States
during the past week, has been one of unusual
interest to photographers and has been con-
tested with great vigor on both sides, The
plaintiff claimed, under a reissue of a patent
originally granted to Emile r. Weston for an
improvement in burnishers for photographs and
articles of similar nature
The plaintiff machine is we'll known as the
Weston Burnisher," and consists of an ad-
Unstable stationary Furnishing plate, and feed
roll which operates to feed the card or article to
be FURNISHED over the burnisher, which is heat
ed. This invention was patented in 1872, and
the machine put upon the market in consider
able numbers.
The machine used by the defendant and
claimed by the plaintiff to be an Infringement
of his patent, is we'll known as tie ''Eutrekin
Burnisher," and is the invention of Mr.. VIM.
G. Eutrekin, an Ingenious mechanic and sue
cessful photographer residing in the city of
Philadelphia, who obtained patent for his in
venton in 1873. The machine consists of
rotating feed roll and an oscillating Furnishing
plate In combination; it also contains contriv-
ances for the adjustment of the Furnishing
plate to suit the thickness of the material to be
FURNISHED, and it was claimed at the trial by
Mr. Eutrekin that the oscillation of the burnish-
er remedied the scratching and twisting of the
picture during the process of Furnishing, and
impaired better finish to the face of the card.
1t was also claimed by him that the oscillation
served to keep the Furnishing tool in good or
der.
The defence consisted of two branches; first
that MI. Weston was not the first and original
inventor of the improvement patented by him;
and second, that the Eutrekn machine was
not an infringement. 1t was also claimed that
that the plaintiffs reissued letters patent were
not for the same invention described in the
original patent, but this last ground was over
ruled by the court as matter Of law.
In support of the first defence, the defendant
offered proof that as early as 1860 or 1861 one
John f. Schuyler, then in the employment of
Mr.. VIM E. Lockwood, the well known man.
ufacturer of paper collars, &C., in Philadelphia,
invented and put into practical operation a
machine for Furnishing paper collars, card
board and other like material, which contained
substantially the alleged invention of Weston,
aud it was considered that the machine antic-
ipating the machine of Weston, invalidated
his patent.
The two issues of priority and infringement
were separately submitted to the jury by the
court The jury returned verdict for the de-
fendant. and found specially that the plaintiffs
assignor, Weston, was not the original and fist
inventor of the feature claimed in the patent
relied upon by the plaintiff.
The case has occupied nearly five days in the
trial and has been closely and hotly contested in
every stage. Much testimony was introduced
by both parties, and the merits of their respect
i've claims thoroughly canvassed. it being un-
dersJood that that this was test case, and in
volved much more than the matter of alleged
Infringement by the single machine used by
defendant.
Messrs. w. F. Seavey of Bangor, W. Fl.
Clifford of Portland, and Coombs Of Washing
ton, appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and
Messrs. Charles Howson, of the firm of How
son & Son of Philadelphia, and A. A. Strout
of this city, conducted the trial on the part of
the defendant