Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1877-09-07


chimes was progressing but gave no notice 10
discontinue it. Now this INDUCTION would ruin
the fortune OF the manufacturer, Mr.. johnson,
who mad contracted to supply these machiues.
Courts of equity require complainant to Goa
10 with clean hands and to do iusic? ao3
equity to the defendant party. 1.-THE p!a0t;.
had legal right under this patent lie had s.ol.,
by and permitted the contractor 10 iucur :.
sponsibiities|Without notice, and tue il uncti,n
would do more harm to the contractor than IT,
dissolution would to the plaiaiF. Tnc deicniaa,-
patent had been put 10 use bat be plaintiff tad
not, and by not giving the public the bcrt:;: Of.
be had violated his cooIric: with the eCTaInucn,
of the u. s., which made the graft ui1n cen.
ditions of the public benefit.
Col. Young, of Richmond, argued 10 flvor
of the Injunction. AID referred u III i. :.
statutes to show the large discretion allowed T.
the Court in Determining the allowance Of 10.
functions.
In reply to Major Grmsley be argued that
objections to the bill We're mere mater. O.
form, which could be ru: 10 by way OF amet!
ment, and the plaintiff could not be turntI CT;
of Court on such ground. The oti:c;!on
was that the Invention had not been put 10 Use,
but if this was the law no new invention c:u!i
be protected by INJUNCTION, 50 if there hai b-uu
az acknowledged and public Infringement there
could be 60 remedy. The speaker said The Law
is that the plaintiff must show clear tIit: at!
a good patent II hts title i, right 2nl IN
patent unattached h. was ec,ited to the pro,
lection Of the court, otherwise he came with
la!terog steps. Then if there were reasonable
grounds for believing au Infringement the :our
would sustain the irjncc;i0a. Tie doubts q
the case to BE- adverse 10 the c2Hpialuao:s were
doubts as TO tie validity OF the patcu;s-a0:
doubts about the SAC: ct Infringement. Ills
latter did cot require absolute and lod!spulab."
evidence 10 author!Z, the icj1rctioU. because
the court might say 10 every case, that az there
was some doubt ahCu: the fact Of Infringement
az Injunction would not be granted.
Col. Young read authorities upon the ules
ton of reasonable doubt as applied 10 to III"
plaintiff right, l. e., aftsctog the validity Of
the patent 10 this case there was 90 question
Of the validity OF the patcot, which having oaly
been issued in March last, there had been %
opportunity TO Put il int0 usa lie claimed that
the FouOtaio c;m;na,iun had been putinto The
Mc!Tett register, aud # - there was 40 infringe.
meet. With regard to the change Of flrn,. il
that change produced Il new effect i! was doubt
less pateoable, but lie coo!cnG!d that the e.!
fec, produced b. both registers Was The same.
II the combinations OF the same lhlngS CT their
cuuivaens produced the same results the Gtc
tIlDc tf reinforcement prevailed. The charge tha:
other objects than the protection u patent ri"E-
were the purposes OF the plalutliI, cOui n1
enter into the consideration. As TO the afeuMcat
concerning notice, the plaintiff had used due
diligence, and the defendant had notice b2c.u>:'
of the public fact of the Fountain patent beng
10 existence, and Of the various o!erfcrepcvs
which had been declared before the MtttalI
patent was granted. Gel. Youug's tine h4v,
ing expired.
Attorney General Field spoke next. l!>
claimed the general principle Of patent !aw'
was not the cooferring Of special privileges ~
individual monopoes. bat has pro bono ln5
leo.
The bill Of the p!soti Ii is defective All j.
murrable because it % where alleges that i:,
Fountain REGISTER WAS ever put INTO Use i'r
public benefit. Another ground Is that thcEe
is no allegation 10 the bill Of an adjudication e!
law upon the validity u the patent. The i'i'.
uro 70 make these allegations renders th' b'I
demurrablc and the plaintiff must fail.
The facts oil the case disclose Two pseuta !.
sued by the same authorities, one ISSUE! 'aa
18th of March. 1877, aud the other the / Il
September, 1871, lew moths cllp>'nt b.
tween them. The two patents stand as va"!
DclUIC VIC CUulL dGl IL ~ wv Noo'SuS'' 49,
the plaintiffs patent is invalid. the SANE Illu
cples would apply as 10 the case .! vail ia'!,.
yet The deeds might not confer tiila. he
title is one thing. the right ucdrr the PAL ~
another. The Patent Office clnaot cr,i'! 40
right; they wtra to be determined ty The cou!'.
The answer denies the plaintiffs right; hoH.h
it admits the validity OF the ra.ent The
plaintiffs patent had never been ru. ii.'
praclic, This defect 10 the case had NJ
been cuied by the affidavit OF Ntung!ta.
agcDt, iotioson.
Gen. Field aoa|jzcd the Fountain NOD,
and claimed that i; Vas constructed differently
from what vas claimed in the patents sptch
cation. The specifications claimed registering
of whole fares aad halt fares, and COL laua.
wanted hall bricks Incorporated into the Mot
felt register, and if that had been done Co.
Young would doubtless be On the speakers
side
Col. Youog-"lt wa5 not because | take hail
drinks; | always take one aod q hall.
Gen Field Continued denouucIng The Eouu
tain model as al aborl0n unlike both parents.
aud whenever he saw nan OF that dcscrlpl0u
he always made up hIs mind that that man wa
q knavc and rascal. The speaker argued that
the model was not the Fountain register.
Col. Young Interrupted 10 state that this =
the model now 10 use.
Gen. Fled said that when he told Tic c0uo
sci 90 the other side this morning that Iii
model was not corrcct they should have wills,
drawn it, and if this criticism was hsri and
biting, couosei had brought it upon them
selves. The Motl.tt register was il'I2E
reality and not co abortion. The speaker too&
issue upon the point that there YES larger DIS
erosion 10 the Court in INJUNCTION cases thao
anv othnr Thu disnresiou wa; the same in al
cases. yet the jurisdiction might be grea'cf'
The infringement must be such a would cnu
tie the party 10 equitable relief, and to chtsa
thi9 the invention must have been in ,c or 81
indefinite period Of time. The Court cou'd n.
sustain the INJUNCTION without reversing tn
great lumnarles who have preceded il upon
the Federal bench. The plaintiff had ben
guilty of the greatest laches. They lad 10
notified the Auditor before letting the coutrlc'.
nor ecjoioed him. They shrunk back ir'ma e.
test with the power of the Commemorate
when their rights were first jeoparizad: tut
just as soon as poor little Insignificant cit@.