Weekly Chillicothe crisis. (Chillicothe, Livingston Co., Mo.) 1878-19??, 1879-03-20

Recently his Honor Judge Drummond,
ofthe United States Court, was occupied
nearly four days in hearing arguments Of
learned counsel concerning the barb fence
patents. lnthc course of the hearing the
Court passed upon several questions of in
telest to the public.
| The matter came up in a suit OF equity
wherein the Washburnc n Moen Manutac,
turing Company, of Worcester, Mass,
and |, l., Elwood, were plaintiffs, and the
| Lyman Manufacturing Company, OF Chi.
cago, vas defendant.
The plaintiffs are the owners of several
patents for barb fence, which it is alleged
the defendant intrngcs. The first oI
these patents in point of time is the Hunt
patent, dated July q, 1867, which has
sometimes been called the "brOad clam.
The defendant makes a twO.strand twist
ed wire with iOur-pointed wire barb at
tachcd thereto.
Our readers will Of course be interested
to know precisely what Judge Drummond
| did decide, and we therefore publish a few
extracts from the shorthand report of the
hearing.
The Court-What did Hunt claim
Did he claim anything more than thi,
mode Of attaching this circular barb her
to the wire, and this circular barb itself:
Did he claim anything more than that
Mr.. Coburn--l will read what he
claims:
"A fence, wire provided with spurs for
the purpose specified" That is all the
claim.
The Court should have some doubt
about the validity Of that claim That is,
doubt that the claim in the broad sense
set forth there would be sustained. If it
we're sustained, it would amount to a
monopoly Of all modes Of manufacturing
spurs, prickcrs, or barbs, on Il wire fence,
provided it was for the purpose Of keeping
off cattle or stock OF amy kind.
Where the object of the invention is a
particular purpose, don think the pat
nntce can claim all modes of accomplish.
ing that particular purpose, but only the
particular modc Of accomplishing it.
The Court wish YOU would point ont
to me. Mr.. Cobum, what is the wire winch
you say iniringeS the Hunt patent, If that
is your position.
MI Coburn-This is the wire (mdicat-
ing defendants barb.lcncr.
The COurt--if that is the one, yon need
not spend any time on the Hunt patent
At least donot think counsel will contend
that that is an infringement of the Hunt
patent-lmited as theynow admit it must
he limited
Mr.. Payson--I need not take up any
time with the Smith patent. Just look AT
hat. That Is more prcposterous than the
Hunt, and do not think need to say any
thing about that?
The Court think not.
ID seems that the same plaintiffs had
previously sued the Ohio Steel Barb F"nc,
Company, of Cleveland Ohio the Joliet
Wire Fence Company, of Joliet, Ill.,. and
Ayers Decker, ofBushncll, Ill. and had
obtained DEGREES against them sustaing
the validity of the patents. Concerning
these DEGREES the court says:
"I hardly think it Is worth while to take
mp any time about the DEGREES. know
those DEGREES were rendered hy consent.
shall not place any reliance upon them
in this case. shall not consider them OF
lnv weight
We understand that the fight will still
continue over somn of the narrower claims
m the subsequent patents, and is likely to
he in the future, as in the past fruitful
source OF income to the lawyers. - Chicogo
TdeWuph
The above article will be of interest to
many dealers in barbcd wire. and indeed
to every farmer who uses it, and will tend
10 allay some apprehension that has been
felt in consequence of the "broad claim
of the parties who were plaintiffs in the
case. 1t will set at rest a claim which
threatened monopoly Of the business Of
manufacturing i'm article, which is regard
ed as an absolute necessity among the
farmers Of the West.