Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1877-09-06

without previous notice, power when, now
cvor should always be exercised With great
caution.
The Liquor Punch Case.
The u. 5. Circuit Court, Judge L. ".
Hughes presiding, was opened at haltpast
eleven D clock this morning. the opening OF the
Court having been delsyed OF account OF the
uo,-ar!va! { counsel for the plaintiff, Messrs.
Hill and Ellsworth of Washington, who came
dowo on the ! O'Clock ferry boat.
Judge Hughes inquired il counsel we're ready
to proceed with the hearing.
Attorney General Field said he was instruct
ed by his associates to respond to the suggas
ton 8hlci fell from the Court yesterday as TO
avoiiog the necessily OF double trial. Counsel
had net responded yesterday because they de-
sired to ref :ct upon the suggestion OF the Court,
Tor which he held The most profound respect as
we'll for the Cvnr. rs personally for his Honor.
The Object is to adopt some plan ty which the
case cou'd b. finally heard at some future time
withcu, inpairng tie interests Of all parties
ccncerned This proposition Is made in view
uI ,hc suggestions Of the Court yesterday, 10
wui.il the kindly aid OF counsel was iovtcd to
assist The Court iE the Determination Ut tie
legal rights OF the case. Gen. Field then sub.
mitted the following proposition
Yeung.iag
In response to the suggestion Of III: Court on
Yesterday, and in order TO avoid double tria'-
orc o.. the apr lication for the temporary in
junction, snd the OH IT upon the final hearing
III, defendant proposes rs fJlioW:: Tia: said
temporary l:j JUNCTION shall 0e denied upon l.!
Joye I'LL
hei,re the Court or the clerk 10 his Office il ii7c
days bond, with good security. N tae psnsl
sum of s., paysto to III, plsintiG and con-
G!toned for tho payment - HIN C the amoln.
of any judgment that nc msy obtain agains: the
defendant in at action st law for g.! infringe
meut of his patent rights and all costs or -
satisfy snd discharge any decree tast may be
rexdered agsins. him b. this Court; snd ii: DE-.
fandsnt further agrees that there shall be 81 So
sCluto order t)r a new trial upon the merits 8.
the regular term Of thi: CourL in October Lc1t
Gen. Field then spoke 10 advocacy of this
proposition, and said Dooe f these machines
were being manufactured to be used elsewhere
10 the Urlted States, and n9ne were put upon
the market or would BE-, and if bond with
good security be executed the plaintiff c5u!d
sustain 90 loss By lisolviDg the restraining or.
der. The bond would cover all the profits to
be ascartalned before master commissioner CT
the Court. Yesterday the cJua5el Was not Pre-
pared 10 respond, and they ~cTe tRitted Dot
III di5cou!tc0u5 maOoer-With not having
patent, ADD not standing upon the higher = 40
Of legal rights cotql.l with the plaintiff. Now
the defendants were prepared t. sag that they
had obtained patent and we're CO eQua! with
the piaintilf:, and # there vas any difference
the defendants had the 4Ivaatage because they
had put THAR machine into practical use. which
the plaintiffs had never done.
Judge Hughes said it was not perul-sab, 10
bring 10 the aid Of a jury upon preliminary
injunction. \ ury would b. proper when the
fual merits and question: Of tlci were c'ns!t
cred.
Col. Youag, for the liquor dealers, expressed
his surprise at the nature rf the response. les'
lerday the Court had suggested that a jury might
he emplnueedt to try the tioal ghts OF the par
lies. IDa suggestion was not met By either side.
His siic WAS willing II few days time WAS given
10 have final hearing OF the cause. The paper
flied by The defendant was not resp onse 10 the
suggestion ot the court but was an iodepcnd
cut motion, aud it acceded to involved a practi
cal surrender On the part Of The p|aiolitf OF the
great priuc;pIes Of the case. D.tcn1aul's mo-
ton assumed the whole case and was 10 effect
practical druia OF the b,neli to accrue from
er OF not there shall Dc 40 INJUNCTION.
Judge hughes cuquircd it counsel for pl.in-
tit dtc,Ined 10 acoede to the proposition.
Col. \ ouug-"O course, sir. To accede would
be 10 surrender the principle for which VI are
c1niendlDg.
Judge HUGHES SSH thc case mnst 90 90.
Cen Field claimed that the defeudants ha7.
Jog been summoned to shoR cause, they were
therefore entitled 10 hold the Affirmative and to
the opening and concluding arguments.
Col }ouag begged leave to differ, and said
that q summons To shoW cause did DOT !uvert
the standing OF the case and shift the burden
OF proof, or the af1irnance Of the issue. 10
change The order Would be to put the cart he
fore the horse. TO do this would be to involve
the proof of negative.
Judge iluges decided that as it was the plain
tifFs motion they held the affirmative of the is
sue and we're entitled to the opening and con-
c!usl0n.
'lr. Ellsworth fJr liquor dealers raised a
question rs to the order OF proof.
Judge Hughes sid the burden Was upcn the
plaintiffs.
Gen. Field said demurrer had been utter.
posed which coul ouIy be heard at regular
term.
Co.. Young said the proceeding was auoma.
lou5 as an answer mad been put 10 and II was
strange practice to demur after the answer.
Whether the demurrer could be heard or not,
the question as 10 the suficcncy of the bill
could be entertained by the court upon this
motion.
Judge Hughes said he would consider the
sulficicncy OF the bill 10 deciding the motion.
MIR. Ellsworth read the papers filed 10 the
c1use by the plaintiff, and Maj. Grimsey those
filed by The defendants, consisting Of the origi.
nal bill, answers, the assignment OF Vincent
Fountain to lcuugling, the afidavits Of experts,
various patents, &c.
During the presentation OF the case by the
plaintiff, Mr.. Ellsworth read extracts from the
proceedings Of the Patent Office. which showed
that an interference had been declared on the
2S,h OF August, 1876, between the claims Of
Fountain and Gornall, they both claiming a
priority of invention Of the Fare Register"
and that the Commissioner of Patents had de-
:. IL.