The Penn's Grove record., 1883-09-29
Rec ent Legal Decisions.

/. DRIVEN WELLs-PUBLIC USE
KNOWN USE. SAME-REIssUE.-
Nelson W. Green, a Colonel of New
York Volunteers in the late war, to
give the men of his command pure
water devised, in his own mind, a me-
thod by which this could be done. He
first explained his idea to his drill-squad
and afterwards to the officers of his
regiment, and it was this To drH, !
a rod sharpened at the end through the
ground into the water-bearing stratum,
which the water could be drawn by
any ordinary style of pump. A test of
this method was made successfully in
1861 on the place of Green, and in the
same year on the Fair Grounds at
Cortland, New York, at the expense of
one Graham, who had a contract TO
supply food and other necessary articles
to the soldiers encamped there. This
well was used generally by the men in
camp, and by G.. and his employers.
In 1868, Green procured a patent for
this invention and i'll 1871 had a reissue
thereof, in which he claimed as his in
vention the creation of a vacuum in the
lining of the well for the purpose of
using the pressure of the atmosphere TO
bring up the water. In a suit-Andrews
VS.. Hovy-brought in the United
States Circuit Court for the Northern
District of Iowa for an Injunction and
damages for the infringemeHts Of this
patent, the defendant first, denied that
Green was the inventor of the driven
well second, averred that if he were
the inventor he had abandoned his
right to a patent by allowing a public
use of the invention for more than two
years before the granting of the patent
and, third, that the claim under the
reissue was broader than in the first
patent. On the trial the foregoing facts
were shown, and it wa also proved
that this method of driving wells was
usen at Milwaukee, Wisconsin,, in 1S49,
and at Independence, Missouri, in 1851.
And it was also shown that the origi-
nal invention did not claim the erea-
ton of the vacuum and the effect of
the atmospheric pressure. Judge
Shiras in dismissing the bill said -.
Whatever may be the intention of the
inventor, if he suffers the invention to
go into public use through any means
whatever, without an immediate asser-
ton of his right, he is not entitled to a
patent q will a patent then OBJ
tanned protect his right. 2. 1t is shown
that in 1861, at Independence, Missouri,
"A tube was driven into the water bear
ing stratum and 10y u pump attached to
the tube, water was drawn through it,
in an apparently ~ineXhaustible quantity.
This might be treated as a mere isolated
experiment, which would not be held
to defeat the right of an independent
inventor. But in 1S4P and in 1856 E.
W. Purdy, a witness i'll this case, AZ he
t~estifies a well-maker in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, and he used iron-rods about
two inches in diameter and coupled to-
gether. The first rod was sixteen feet
long, with its lower end made for a drill.
and it was worked in the earth by being
run over a gin-pole; and so the earth
was displaced. Then four-inch tubing
wa driven into the opening as the bor-
ing progressed. No soil was removed
from the ground except where quick
sands were struck. A long sheet-iron
bucket, with "a valve al the bottom,
was employed TO bring up the quick
sand. When the water was reached if
= did not come TO the surface a pump
Was attached TO the tubing which
formed the lining of the we'll. Purdy
t~estifes that he drove a number of
these wells--some of them to the depth
of sixty and 100 feet We must col-
TESS that we cannot see any substantial
difference between these wells and
hose made by the Green method. 3.
1t is urged that the great merit of Col
onel Green's invention consists i'll the
discovery of the effect of the vacuum
created. According to the view we
take of the original patent, it did not
cover or describe the application of this
principle. 1t follows, therefore, that
the reissue embraces the application of
an important and material principle
rot found in the original. The rule is
well settled that a reissue can be valid
ly granted only for the same invention
WI ich was originally patented. If the
reissue goes beyond this, and covers
other and different inventions or m
provements suggested by the use of the
original invention, it will be void"
SHIPPIN COMMUNICATIONS
HATCHwAY AT NIGHTS. was EN-
ployed as a deck hand on a steam barge
belonging To H., and AZ night, while ht
was executing an order of the Captain
commanding the vessel, he fell into al
open hatchway, where no light had beer
put by the porter, as was his duty, ant
was injured, In the action-Surre.
VS.. Holt-brought in the United State,
Circuit Court for the Northern distric'
of Ohio to recover damages, the plain
tiff got a Judgment for $1,000. A mo
ton was IN de for "a new trial, ON tn
ground that Judge Welker had erre'
in charging the jury, but the motion
was denied, Judge Baxter %concurrinI
with Judge Welker ia his view of tn
law, The charge was IS follows
1.-The plaintiff can only recover b
showing that the defendant, throug
the negligence or improper condact G
his agents ON the vessel, caused his il
| NT--I.---- 3. A.. f-.t.-.- l. a