National Republican., 1877-09-10
TALLYING DRINKS.

| AN OPERATION WHICH WILL PRoBABLY
SOON BE WITNESSED IN VIRGINIA BAR
ROOMS
The liquor punch case before Judge r. W.
Hughes, presiding over the United States Circuit
Court at Alexandria, was settled last Satur.
day. The action was brought by the ownors
OF the Fountain punch patent against the
holders OF the Motfett register patent, to obtain
a preliminary injunction until the case could
be finally heard and disposed OF. Judge Hughes
ovcrruled the motion for an injunction, and
dissolved the temporary restraining order
which was granted on the Sth Of August.
The liquor mon Of Virginia arc tho COM
plainants In the case Ever since the Moffett
law requiring the introduction of the registers
| In all bar-ro0ms Of the State for revenue pur-
poses was passed by the Legislature the liquor
men have been at work dcvising means TO de-
feat 1t. Tho law was to go into effect on the
list OF June. Thus far they have succeeded In
staving 1t Oft by a sharp trick and the cxpend-
iture OF considerable money. The liquor men
saw that the quickest and most effcctual way
to render the law imperative would be to at
tack the patent under which the Moifctt regis
ters were manufactured.
For this purpose the liquor men contributed
their money and bought the Fountain Register
Bell Punch patent and Immediately COM
menced proceedings in court to obtain m in
Junction against the owners Of the Mofett
register and before the Patent Office. They
were successful in obtaining a temporary re-
straining order on August s, and In obtaining
decision In their favor at the Patent Office.
The Commissioner of Patents subsequently, re-
vised the decision, and declared in favor Of
the Moffett register. The Motfett law states
explicitly that the Moffett registers shall be
used, and IL the tactics Of the liquor men had
been successful the law would have been dead
The action OF Judge Hughes Saturday is
also against the liquor men. The Alexandria
Garsitc of Saturday says:
This decision although upon a preliminary aues.
ton practically determines the whole case so
ihr 9s the court Is concerned, and the State atI.
thorities VIII, doubtless, proceed with renewed
zeal In executing the provisions Of the law.
Judge Hughes in giving his decision re-
viewed the case. He claimed that the action
of the Patent Office, in recognizing the Monett
Deane patent, made q primd fdcie case in
favor Of the defendant, and further, that tho
difference In the construction of the two in
struments, and the purposes for which they
were intended warranted the court in over
ruling the motion for a preliminary injunc-
tion.
The defendant was required to give bond
OF S2O,OOO, to account for the number of in
struments manufactured for him and the re-
ceipts from their SALE and also with reference
to the great number of suits which COMPLAIN
ant may be obliged to bring in the event of q
decree In his favor at the final hearing. II Is
probable that the click of the bell-punch will
soon be heard In the Virginia BARI rooms, as the
revenue officers are already supplied with the
instruments, and have only been prevented
from carrying out the law by the restraining
order which Judge Hughes has dissolved.