Morning journal and courier., 1880-12-09
The Court Record.
un1.ea st.te. olreu.t court-Juage shl

United States Circuit COurt-Judge Ship
 man-Important Case.
 Judge Shipman sat in chambers at Hart | ford Tuesday afternoon and evening until s:3O hearing the closing arguments in the suit of the Yale Lock Manufacturing Com pany, of Stamford, and James Sargent and H. S. Greenleaf. of Rochester. N. Y., ys. the Norwich National bank, the New Haven Savings bank and the Holmes Time Lock. The case is a very important and interesting one, and the argument has occupied much of the time for four days, Friday, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday. The counsel on both sides are eminent for their position in the legal profession. For the compliments ap- peared George Ticknor Curtis and Edmund Wetmore of New York, and Causten Brown of Boston for the defendants B. F. Thurs ton of Providence and Samuel A. Duncan of New York MT. Brown, of Boston, closed his argument last Saturday evening The other counsel, except MT. Duncan, were all heard Tuesday.
 The question at issue, we understand, is whether bank has the right to use a time and combination lock that act together. In October, 1877, all the numerous time lock patents held by Sargent & Greenleaf and the Yale Lock Manufacturing company were
 
 patents are sold under 8 joint license and guaranty of the two companies, and purchas- CTS of any time lock not sold by them or their authorized agents, they claim, are liable to suits for infringement of patents. Suits are now pending against the Hall, the Holmes and the IIille time locks; and the compartments claim to have already collected over $19, 300 from banks using time locks which are in- judgements upon their patents.
 The decision of Judge Shipman was re- served. It will be looked for with interest by bankers and the general public
 Supreme Court of Errors.
 This court resumed it's sitting yesterday morning.
 The first case heard was that of George Turner vs. Edward Davis. The question at issue was the recovery of rent and possession of certain leased premises, and was an appeal from the decision of justice of the peace in proceedings of summary process in favor of Davis against Turner. H. E. Pardee for plaintiff Hamilton for defendant.
 The next case heard was that of Watts Cooke vs. the Town of Orange. It was 8 motion for a new trial and in error. In 1876 the Watson Manufacturing company of Pat erson, N. J., contracted to build the bridge across West river at Congress avenue. and be- fore completing the bridge the company failed. Watts Cooke was appointed receiver and he carried out the contract and com pleted the bridge. A balance of $148 was due on the bridge;from the town of Orange, and this amount the Blake Crusher company factorized for debt due them by the Watson company. Cooke then sued the town for the balance due on the bridge. The town al legged that he had no legal right, as foreign receiver, to bring suit, under the circum- stances, in this State, and furthermore that the amount claimed by Cooke had been at tached by the Crusher company and paid over to them in good faith. Judge Stoddard found for the plaintiff, whereupon the de- fendants filed motion in error and asked for 8 new trial. Bronson for plaintiff H. T. Blake for defendant.
 Samuel Forbes vs. Robert Rowe was next heard. The parties belong in East Haven and the suit was originally brought on a promissory note. The action was against the guarantor and the declaration con- tained four counts, to all of which the defendant demurred in the Court of Common Pleas at it's May term, 1880, and the demurrer was sustained and judgment ren- dered for the defendant. To this the plain tiff demurred and the case came to this court on motion in error.
 The last case was argued in the evening at 7 o'clock It was that of Beecher Perkins vs. David Tucker. The case involved the ownership of carriage for which note was given by the plaintiff for his son. The son failed to pay the note and the carriage went into the possession of the plaintiff. The suit is one of replevin to recover from the deputy sheriff, defendant, the property attached for debt of the plaintiff s son. H. L. Hotchkiss for plaintiff, H. D. Russell for defendant
 When the arguments in this case were fin ished the court adjourned without date.