The Delaware ledger. (Newark, Del.) 1879-19??, 1883-09-29
Recent Legal Decisions.

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 drive
a rod sharpened at the end through the
ground into the water-bearing stratum,
and inserting in the bore tube through
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 G reen, 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 patent for
this invention and in 1871 had 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 suit-Andrews
VS.. Hovy-brought In the United
States Circuit Court for the Northern
District of Iowa for an injunction and
damages for the infringements 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 was also proved
that this m, thod Of driving wells was
usen at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1849,
and at Independence, Missouri, in 1851.
And it was also shown that the origi-
| nal invention did not claim the crea-
ton of the vacuum and the effect of
the atmospheric pressure. Judge
Shiras in Diminishing the bill said 81.
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 nor will patent then OBJ
tanned protect his right. 2. 1t is shown
that in 1861, at Independence, Missouri,
tube was driven into the water bear
ing stratum and by pump attached to
the tube, water was drawn through it,
in an apparently ineXhaustible quantity
This might be treated as mere isolated
experiment, which would not be held
to defeat the right of an independent
inventor. But in 1S49 and in 1856 f
W. Purdy, witness in this case, as hi
testilies well-maker in Milwaukee
Wisconsin, and he used iron-rods about
two inches in diameter and coupled to
gether The first rod was sixteen fee
long, with its lower end made for drill
and it was worked in the earth by beinl
run over gin-pole and 80 the eartl
was displaced. Then four-inch tubing
was driven into the opening as the Dor
ing progressed. No soil was removed
from the ground except where quick
sands were struck. A long sheet-irol
bucket, with valve at the bottom
was employed to bring up the quick
sand. When the water was reached i
it did not come to the surface pun
a; was attached TO the tubing whicl
formed the lining of the we'll. Purd
testities that he drove number u
these wells--some of them TO the dept
4 of sixty and 100 feet We must con
D TESS that we cannot see any substantis
8 difference between these wells an
a those made by the Green method.
1t is urged that the great merit of Co
: onel Green's invention consists in tn
t discovery of the effect of the vacuum
: created. According to the view "
: take of the original patent, it did nc
9 cover or describe the application of tn
: principle. 1t follows, therefore, ths
l the reissue embraces the application {
t an important and material principl
+ not found in the original. The rule
3, well settled that reissue can be valiC
y ly granted only for the same inventio
i which was originally patented. If til
g reissue goes beyond this, and covel
}, other and different inventions or n
d provements suggested by the use of til
L original invention, it will be void"
SHIPPIN G-NEaLIGENCE-OPE
= HATCHwAY AT NIGHT.-S. was en-
! ployed as deck hand on steam barg
n belonging to H., and at night, while /
- was executing an order of the Capital
q commanding the vessel, he fell into a
=. open hatchway, where no light had bee
a put by the porter, as was his duty, an
% was injured, In the action-Surre
! vs.. Marlborough in the United Statt
NJ Circuit Court for the Northern distrit
a of Ohio TO recover damages, the plaiI
"A tiff got judgment for $4,000. A m,
m tion was made for new trial, on IL
"a ground that Judge Welker had erre
NJ in charging the jury, but the motto
' was denied, Judge Baxter concurrir
in with Judge Welker in his view of IL
"a lew. The charge was as follows
n 1.-THE plaintiff can only recover /
is showing that the defendant, throug
" the negligence or improper conduct
e. his agents on the vessel, caused his il
" juries. Negligence is the failing to {