Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1878-05-02
THE HERALD.
A PATEN TED OEILD.

New York Times


The town of Sussex, Penn, he's
been profoundly stirred by an extra.
ordinary and romantic lawsuit. The
case was entirely novel one, and no
precedent bearing upon it is to be
found in the common or statute law.
While it is necessarily matter of
great interest to the legal profession,
its romantic side cannot fail to attract
the attention of persons of all ages
and every kind ofsex. In fact, it is
destined TO be one of the most cele-
brated cases in the annals Of Ameri.
can jurisprudence.
Some time last winter lady whom
we will call Mrs. Smith, who kept a
clearinghouse in Sussex, took her
little girl, aged 4, with her to make a
call on Mrs. Brown, her near neigh
Dor. Mrs. Brown was busy in her
kitchen, where she received her Wis.,
itor with her usual cordially. There
was large fire blazing in the stove,
and while the ladies were e&citedly
discussing the new bonnet of the To-
cal Methodist minister's wife, the lit
tie girl incautiously sat down on the
stove hearth. She was instantly con-
WINGED that the hearth was exceed
ingly hot, and on loudly bewailing
the fact, was rescued by her mother,
and carried home for medical treat
ment. A few days later Mrs. Smith
burst in great excitement into the
room of young law student, who
was one of her boarders, and with
tears and lamentations disclosed to
him the fact that her child was indel-
IDLY branded with the legenl, "Pat-
ented. 1872" These W rds raised
letters had happened t. occupy just
that part of the stovehe tn en- W 1ich
the child had seated ner ilf,a,d b ling
heated nearly TO red-h at, they had
reproduced themselves the SUI face
of the unfortunate child
The law student ent red rnto the
mothers sorrow with mi IN sy mps thy,
but after he had in ONE de gree
Gained her mind he ,forrled her
that a breach of law h 4 ben com.
mitted. "Your child" he r. marked,
"has never been, but she
is marked Patented, 1879.
This is an Infringement Of the statute
You falsely represent by that brand
that child tor whom no patent has
been issued is patented. This false
representation is forgery, and subjects
you to the penalty made and pro.
vided for that crime"
Mrs. Smith was, as may be sup
posed, greatly alarmed at hearing this
statement, and her first impulse was
to beg the young man to save hel
from couvicts cell. With gravity
suited to the occasion, he explained
the whole law of patents. He told
her that had she desired to patent the
child, she should have either con
structed model of it or prepared &C
curate drawings, with specification,
showing distinctly what parts of the
child she claimed to haYe invented
This model or these drawings she
should have forwarded to the patent
office, and she would then have re-
ceived in due time patent-provid
ed, OF course, the child was really
patentabie---and would have been au
thorized to liable it patented" Gun
fortunately" he pursued, sit is now
TOO late to take this course, and W.
must boldly claim that patent wal
issued, but that the record was de
stroyed during the recent fire in tn,
patent office"
This suggestion cheered the spirit
OF Mrs. Smith, but they were agar
dashed by the further remarks of tn,
young man. He reminded her tina
the child might find it very inconve
nient to be patented. eff we claim
he went on to say-''that she ha
been regularly patented, it follow
that the ownership of the patent, in
Guiding the child herself, belongs t.
you, and will pass at your death int,
the possession OF your heirs. Hold
ing the patent, they can prevent am
husband taking possession of the cir
by marriage, and then can sell, assign
transfer, and set over the patent-righ
and the accompanying girl to an,
purchaser. If she is sold to a specu
lator or to a joint stock company, sh,
will find her position most uupleas
ant one. To sum up the case, madam
either your child is patented or she il
not. If she is not patented, you ar,
guilty of forgery. If 81 is patented
she is an object of barter and sale, or
in other words, a chattei."
This was certainly retoned stat
of things, and Mrs Smi h. to ease he
mind, bagan to abuse Mrs Brown
whose stove had brand ID the unfor
tunate little girl. She l>udly insiste,
that the whole fault res ed with Mrs
Brown, and demanded o know if tn
latter could not be p uishei. Tn
young man, who wasimmensely lesrne,
in the law, thereupon began a new
argument. He told her that wher
there is a wrong there must, in tn
nature OF things, be remedy. "Mrs
Brown, by means of her stove. ha
done you great wrong In accord
ance with the maxim, 'qui facit pe
alum tacit per Se,' Mrs. Brown. ant
not the stove, is the party from whom
You must demand redress She ba,
wickedly and maliciously, and at the
instlgation of the devil, branded Won,
child, and thus rendered you liable
TOR infringement of the patent law. |,
is my opinion, madam, that an action
for assault and an action for libel will
both lie against Mrs. Brown. and
'Semote,' that there is also ground 70,
having her indicted FOR procurement
OF forgery" Finally, after much ar.
gument, the young man advised he,
to apply to magistrate and procure
the arrest and punishment of Mrs
Brown.
Accordingly, Mrs. Smith applied &c
the mayor, who, after vainly irvine
to comprehend the case and to find
out the precise crime alleged against
Mrs. Brown, compromised the matte,
by unofficially asking that lady TO ap
pear before him. When both ladie.
were in court, Mrs. Smith, prompted
by the clerk, put her complaint in the