Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1883-03-23
VV,,dbaw Couptv Cour,.


j. Fstcy d. Co. rs. c. b. Stoughton and s.
N. Wdite.-This was an action on the case
in which the PLAINTIFF sought to recover dam
ages claimed to have been sustained by them
by reason Of certain alleged mutilations and
injuries done to three Of their exhibits known
as Nos. q, 81 and 80, rendering them worth
less as evidence on the hearing before the
United States circuit court in the case Of
Burdet Us. Estey 6 Co. for an infringement
Of his patent Harmonic Celeste reed-board
The evidence of the plaintiff tended to show
that during the taking Of the evidence in the
aforesaid patent case, they introduced in evil
dence aud had marked as exhibits two organs
containing reed-boards which they claimed
we're substantially like the reed board of said
Burdett which was patented to him in Feb
ruary, 1869. That reed-board in exhibit No.
q was constructed and put to use in 1866,
and the reed board in exhibit No. "a in 1856
or 1857, both by one Arvid Dayton of VOL
cottville, Conn, thereby tending to prove
that Mr.. Burdett was not the first discoverer
and inventor of what he claimed, which if
true would render his patent null and void.
That exhibit No. 80 was made at their own
factory for the purposes Of that trial and
having two actions-the one like No. "a and
the other like Burdetts patent-whieh when
played upon would demonstrate that the mu-
steal effects of the one were the equivalent
of the other. That the defendant Stoughton
was the solicitor of Burdett who had the
charge of taking the proofs on the COM
plainants' part, and that the defendant Waite
was furnishing the money to pay the ex-
penses of that litigation and was party in
interest. That after the said Estey Il Co.
had closed their evidence, these exhibits,
with others, were sent to the Office of Slough
ton, Burnett & Stoughton to be examined by
their experts preparatory to taking their re-
butting evidence. That while they were in
their care these three exhibits were taken
apart, the dust which had accumulated on
reed boards 81 and 81 was cleaned off, the
name of Arvid Dayton upon No. 2l carefully
erased, the partitions between two or three
reed cells in exhibit No. 80 broken or cut out,
the bellows in 81 made to leak wind so that
said instrument could not be played upon
That the expense which plaintiffs were put
to in paying extra counsel and witnesses to
prove the instruments to have been what
they claimed they were before they were in
iured while in Stoughton's Office was from
$4,000 to SO 900. The evidence of the de-
PENDANTS tended to show that while said in
struments were in their custody they under
went most rigid examination on the part of
counsel and witnesses who subsequently tes-
tilted rs experts, whose testimony tended to
show that No. 81, which was the principal
reed board in controversy, was patched-up
affair that certain parts had been added
thereto after the reed board was first con-
structed, in order to show a reed board sub.
stantially like Burdetts patent, and then had
been carefully stained unlike any other reed
board made or produced in order to make
the old and new wood look alike. That the
musical effects produced was not at issue in
that case, but that the simple question at is
sue was whether or not the reed board in No.
21 them or when first constructed by Arvid
Dayton in 1866, contained the same comb-
nation of mechanical instrumentalities as the
patented one of Burdett. The defendants
evidence further tended to show that the
court before whom that case was tried found
as q matter of fact that while No. 81 was a
genuine reed board when first put in evil
dence and had not been changed since first
made by Dayton, yet it was unlike the Bur
dett patent and was in no respect its equiya-
lent in its mechanical construction and com
bination of its several parts That while the
exhibits underwent the most rigid examina-
ton, yet while the same were in Stoughtons
office they were carefully cared for and we're
in no respect unnecessarily injured; and as
evidence in that cause were in no regard in
iured at ALL but all their several parts were
entire and unniured so far as their mechan-
ical construction and combination of parts
were concerned, and for which the Burdett
patent was granted, and which formed the
issue and bone of contention in that suit.
The trial commenced Wednesday morning of
last week and the case was submitted to the
jury about p. NJ. on Monday of this week.
The jury were unable to agree and were dis
charged from further consideration of the
case Tuesday noon. Martin n Eddy and c.
B. Eddy for plaintiffs, Waterman and Has
kins for defendants.
Moses johnson rs. Central W. u. Il. Co. -
This was an action on the case to recover for
damages sustained in being thrown with his
horse and wagon down an embankment while
travelling on O highway in Londonderry, ad-
jacent to the line of the defendants railroad.
The plaintiffs evidence tended to show that
in August, 1881, he was riding in his wagon
drawn by one horse along and over high
way in the town of Londonderry; that upon
the one side of the highway was a steep en-
bankment, and that upon the other side of
said highway is the line of the defendants
roadbed, which said roadbed was elevated to
considerable height above the highway.
That defendants section men or employees
were at work widening and gravelling said
roadbed, and in 80 doing, as he was driving
along on the highway below, they carelessy
and mprudently shovelled gravel and stone
in such a manner that large stones came roll
ing down the bank across said highway and
under his horse and wagon Wnlcn frightened
his horse, causing it to jump down the en-
bankment on the opposite side That in the
fall he broke one of the bones in his right
arm, bruised his shoulders, broke two ribs,
and otherwise injured him about the head
chest and back rendering him incapable of
performing manual labor for long time ;
and from the effects of which he never had
fully recovered, and never would fully recov-
err. The evidence on the part of the defend
ant tended to show that their employees, when
they saw the plaintiff riding along in the
highway, stopped their work entirely and all
stood looking at him and saw his horse shy
at something and go over the bank that no
gravel or stones were at the time being re-
moved and none was being rolled down the
bank to brighten any horse that while the
plaintiff sustained some injuries, yet his said
injuries we're of q temporary nature from
which he had long since recovered and he was
now able to do mans work Also that the
horse he was driving was not gentle horse
in all respects, but skittsh and accustomed
to shy out by reason Of natural objects along
the margins of highways. The plaintiff &
evidence in rebuttal tended to contradict
this. This morning the jury rendered YER
dict for the plaintiff, fixing damages at 1925
Wolcott j. G. Eddy and Read for the plant
if Martin, Waterman and O. B. Eddy fol
defendant
This was the last jury case of the term
The jury were discharged this morning ent
an adjournment will be reached to-day.
VERMONT NEWS.