The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-09-07
Alexandria Gazette. 5th.
The I,1GuOr-Punch Case.

Alexandria Gazette. 5th.1
The LlauOr-Pnncb Case.
The argument OF the motion for postpone
mcnt OF the hearing OF the preliminary in
| junction in the case OF Ieungling, assignee
Of Vincent Fountain, rs. Fontalne ID. John
son, commonly called the "Punch Case
was resumed before Judge II. W. IIughc:
in the United States Circuit Court thi:
morning.
Colonel J. i. Young, OF Richmond, fol
the plaintiff and the liquor. dealers, con.
cluded the argument in favor Of postpone.
ment, and said the course Of the argument
| OF counsel yesterday upon the motion re.
quircs a somewhat different reply from what
was intended. Judge Crump had travelled
out Of the record. and whatever the reasons
for this course were it was incumbent Ia
follow him, although the speaker might dis.
cuSs subjects not directly affecting the sui
jcct in hand. Judge Crump had claimed
that his client had been suddenly opposed
in the manufacture Of the machines with
out any notice save the restraining order
which had been granted in the cause. The
facts were different, AZ Mr.. Moflett
had applied for patent which had
been opposed by the owners OF the
Fountain patent. The defendant was
not, therefore, in the condition OF 4 man
who had been taken by surprise. He had
the fullest kind of notice that il he went on
with the manufacture Of these machines he
would be stopped by injunction. The
plaintiff was not to presume that the de-
fcndunt would 90 on with the manufacture
OF these machines when up to that time the
defendants patent had received the con-
demnatiou OF the Patent Office. The con-
duet OF the plaintiff had been fully vindica-
-
fendant had not been taken by surprise.
There had been no time for notice to the
defendant of the motion, for il the plain
tin had stopped to give notice the merry
ringing OF the bells would have been
heard all over, Richmond" and the
Motfett patent would have been introduced
all over the State, and the complainant's
pstent would have been defeated. AS to
notice, the opinion already filed By the court
covered the question, and nothing further
was necessary to be said. AS to Judge
Crump's claim that restraining order
should only be issued upon notice, in prac-
tice in Virginia every Injunction is Of itself
= restraining order; and whoever heard OF
a notice in q case Of injunction: Counsel
for defendant also complains that the bond
was insufficient; and suppose it was, the
Court would only require new bond.
The Court, in its order, did not require
the plaintiff, Yeungling, to give his per-
sonaL bond, but rcquireda q bond with secll-
rity. which means anybody's bond. This
legal principle does not depend upon statu-
torv provisions, but in practice was followed
before the statute, which only adopted the
principle that before existed. The analogy
followed the practice III the United States
courts, and especially in inlunctions i'll pat
ent cases where the jurisdiction OF the chan-
cellor is broader and more comprehensive
than in any other class OF cases withln lts
Jurisdiction. The bond was therefore not
Tc,artive. It was given on the advice Of
oo,,nsaI aud after mature consideration.
Judpe Hughes here stated that the reason
oiven to him for Yeungling's not executing
tha hond in person was because he was
owav travelling and could not be found.
Counsel acceded to this and contended that
= was nnimportant who executed the bond
so it was properly fled
Judge Crump interrupted, ana salu tnat
the order required that the bona shoulo
have been tiled before the clerk in Aiex2n-
dria on the 2Sth OF August, and this order
hod not been compiled with.
Colonel Young continued, and said 1t MADE
M difference whether the bond was hied IN
tha Richmond or Alexandria oihce.. he
would not have noticed this small matter
bnt tbe counsel for defendant had mace
grave point OF it.
,Thc learned counsel for defendant ike
wise complained that the answer had not
heon filed at rules. The counsei was
strangely oblivions OF the practlce, anu II
thn answer was filed in advance Of the rule
day If only tended to hasten the progress or
tbc cause. and, US General Field has SAID,
timc WAS the essence OF this case, thcy
o,Icht not to find fault with the proceed-
inSs The answer OF the defendants was
not filed until the 10Th, one day after the
time fixed for its filing, and it was accom-
nanied by nearly two dozen exhibits.
General Field inquired II the pla'ntii
wis injured by the alleged delay, and SAID
that he was prepared to show Dy amaai!'s
that the answer was rendered here on the
Colonel Young replied that the plalntlh
uas injured by the delay. Time was pre-
cious. because these copies OF patents had
to be obtained and examined by experts
whose evidence would explain the points OF
adherence in the inventions, and whether
those differences ere material or inmate
rial. The speaker was unfamiliar WIN tne
practice in patent cases, but the evlue!ice VI
these experts was admissible. WI nilst tne
doctrine regarding injunctions was that tne
proceedings should be with all cohfeh!ent
speed, yet it did not require ineonvenient
speed' and where the answer sets up new
matter matter Of which the plaintiff was ignorant
until the filing Of the answer, some tune nc
must be allowed the piaintln 10 Iespoliu ~ ~
the new matter. Nothing more than rea-
sonable time was asked for: Yesterday
counseI for plaintiff was here in the morn
ING. and the defendants were absent.
General Field here explained that they
were IN Washington, and supposed tie te
CoIirt would be engaged in hearing the
Arlington suit for at least three hours.
Colonel Young said it was another acci-
dent for which he was not responsible.
Counsel for the defendants had assalied tue
plaintiff and criticised their conduct IN tue
case, but the plaintiff had been Ienient ana
kind TO the shortcomings OF the defendants.
Snap Judgment was not the proper practice
and would not be indulged in on bis slde: I. :.
A short delay would not benefit the p'alnt'h
kI.~