Litchfield enquirer., 1878-12-05

firm of J.. Esfey G Co. A declsl0n has JUS been reached, and we proceed immediately | give our readers full and clear statement, a we understand she matter, of the points at is arrived at. We have thoroughly digested tn case, understand 1t in ali it's bearings, and, hay ing up to this moment refrained, as our reader will remember, from any comment in the mat ter at all, are now prepared to give an accoun of it, which, we trust, will once for all settle the various conflicting stories and krumor which have for a long time befogged the pub lie mind as to the merits or demerits of thu two sides of question which is in our opin ion, the most important patent case relating tt the piano or organ trade that has ever beer fought cut ID the courts. ~ -'@
 HISTORY OF THE CASE.
 In February, 1871, Mir. Riley Burdett com menced legal proceedings in the United State Circuit Court for the District of Vermont against the members of the firm of J. Estey & Co, in order to restrain them from an alleged infringement of patent of his granted him February 23d, 1869, for an Improvement ir the manufacture of reed organs, and to compel them to account to him fer all profits made from all devices constructed on the principles which he alleged infringed his patent. Judge Smalley. before whom the case was originally brought, died before it's conclusion. It then came before Judge Woodruff, who also died. In February, 1875, it was argued before Judge Johnson, who held his decision for nearly two years, and, finally, also died without ever hay ing rendered It. At this stage of the proceed ings, it was arranged to be heard in May, 1878, before Judges Blatchford, of New York, and Wheeler, of Vermont, being respectively Cir cult and District Judges sitting together in New York. These judges have now (Novem= Der 1S 1S7S) rendered their opinion in the case
 COUNSEL IN THE CASE.
 Messrs. J. Estey & Go. have, during the protracted litigation, had as counsel Hon. Ed mund Burke, Chas M. Keller, Esq. (who has since died Hon. Wm. M. Evarts (Secretary of Statel, and Edward N Dickerson, Esq Mir. Riley Burdett has had for counsel c. B.. Stoughton, Esq, Hon. H. E. Stoughtsn (who has since diedI Hon. E. H. Stoughton, the Hon. Geo. F. Edmunds Senator for Vermont and E. J. Phelps, Esq.
 THE PLAINTIFF's CLAIMS S
 The claims made by the plaintiff under his patent of 1S69 were, in plain words, as fol lows: . .s.----.----- .-r..-.-.
 FErst Reed boards containing two and a half sets of reeds.
 Second. Contracted valve openings of a double reed-bOard, admitting an additional partial set of reed openings.
 Third. A common double reed-board.
 Fomrt2. Stops or dampers when placed up- on reed boards.
 Practically, Mir Riley Burdetts position amounted to this: that no organ manufacturer could make an organ with tive or more sets of reeds, without paying him a royalty.
 THE DEFENDANTS s ANSWER.
 The position taken by the defendants was FIrst. That a patent owned by J. Estey 6 Co, dated January 9, 1866, for tri-reed- board, covered the entire subject in question:
 Second That even if it did not. all the plaintiffs devices were old, and had been in use long before.
 1htrd. That the plaintiff frauduently claimed a common double reed-board, and the stops or dampers, winch he knew to he old and in common use. E~
 THE EVIDENCE
 The plaintiff put in evidencean organ which the defendants admitted they had made and asked for decree thereupon, in accordance with the claims in his patent
 The defendants put in answer not only their patent of 1866, but various reed boards and organs made by one Arvid Dayton, one of the oldest manufacturers in Connecticut, running back to the year 1855, and one organ in partic- ular known in his case as Exhibit Nc 21, made in the year 1866, long anterior to the date when plaintiff claimed to have made his in- vention, and which had been not only in pub lie use but had been exhibited at various fairs in the country, and described in the newspa- pers in the year 1S66 This evidence was re- sitted by the plaintiff on the ground that the devices contained therein which would defeat Qf ypnr inc al tVyn Arr nf the instigation of the defendants for the pur- poses of this suit. This was practically charg- ing Messrs. J. Estey & Co.,, with fraud, perju- v and the subOrdinatiOn of perjury.
 Estey & Co. met this charge by producing the manufacturer who made the organ, the wOrkmen who actually built it, the purchaser of the instrument and his daughter, for whom it was purchased and in whose possession it had been ever since, and who'had played upon it for period of seven years, when it was put into this case as evidence, beside several prominent citizens, who had seen the organ at the various fairs and in the house of it's owner and were acquainted with it.
 It was admitted by the counsel on both sides that the Dayton rced-beards and organs, if the integrity was established, were complete and final answer to the entire case.
 THE DECISION OF THE JUDGEs
 At the end of this article we have appended in full the decision of the judges, of which we here make a brief abstract.
 Messrs. Blatchford and Wheeler have deci- ded:
 First. That the patent of 1866, held by J. Estey & O., is a partial, but not complete an- swer to plaintiffs patent of 1869.
 Second. That the integrity of the entire Dayton exhibits of organs and reed-boards is farllx ala chal defendants and their witnesses from every charge made by the plaintiff in reference to this matter.
 Third. That there was not the slightest ev- idence to show that the third claim of plain tiffs patent had been infringed upon by the defendants.
 Fourth. That the fourth clam of plaintiffs patent was old. and that he must furnish sat isfactory proof to the Court of his having en- tered proper disclaimer for all that he had claimed in it before he would be entitled to 6 decree on his first two claims 5
 FVA. That the admission, of both sides that the Dayton exhibits fully answered the case, was incorrect &~8 N#.
 SGrth. In sustaining the first and second claims of plaintiff patent they narrowed these claims, down so as 10 practically make then but Of little value to plaintiff. @
 SecenM. That in consequence of plaintiff having claimed in his patent, (3d and 4th claims) what was old, he was not entitled to recover costs.
 THE PRACTICAL RESULTS OF THE DECISION are that the plaintiff has failed to establish his case as he set out to do, that he has to pay all the heavy costs of his suit, that he has to file disclaimer of the fourth claim of his patent, before he is entitled to a decree on his first two claims, and that finally should he, when the case is appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States at Washington even estab. fish the two claims, now decided in his favor. these claims have been so narrowed down. that the damages he can possibly recover from tht defendants will be entirely nominal. This is emphatically and practically
 COMPLETE vINDIcATros AND TRIUMPH For
 J.. EsTEY AND CO.,,
 who are fully shown, in the opinion of tn, ablest judges in the land, to have been honor able and upright in the whole transaction, anC to have been exposed to large amount of un reasonable persecution and villification LIBEL SUIT FOR $SO,OoO DAMAGES AGAINST
 .e-a. -- se -f sp& .--4sra-. lsH Ee t4 E