Morning journal and courier., 1883-02-24
auurnal aaS Gonrier.
Saturday,, Feb. 24, 1883.
VICTORY FOR ssTHE BELL

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR ssTEIE BELL.''
 The Bell telephone appears to be rapidly triumphing over it's competitors. A suit which has attracted much attention has just been decided in its favor in England in the court of appeals after 8 hard fought legal battle. The trial in the lower court before MT. Justice Fry occupied sixteen days, and in the court of appeals before the master of the rolls, Lord Justice Lindley and Lord Justice Bowen, it occupied nine days.
 The United Telephone company, owning the Bell and Edison patents sued to restrain an infringement of their patents. The de- fendants maintained that Bell was not the in- ventor of the telephone; that a German, Herr Refs, in 1862 published in German scientific jouxnal an illustrated description of an instrument invented by him for ths re- production of musical sounds by electro magnetism, copy of which journal found it's way to the library of the Institute of Civil Engineers in England. Second that the invention of MT. Bell had been exhibited, and 50 published, in England, by Sir William Thompson, of Glasgow, shortly before the date of the patent and, third, that the spec ifcations of Mir. Edison's patent for 8 trans mitter, involving the principle of the micro phone, were improperly drafted, claiming the photograph also, which was not com prised in the provisional specifcstions,-s fatal fault under English law. The decision in the inferior court was for the plaintiff on all points except that regarding the Edison patent, and both parties appealed. There is, however, 8 provision of English law enab- ling an inventor to enter 8 disclaimer of part of the title or specification so as to save a patent. This was done in the present case, and the sole question before the court of appeals was the validity of the Bell patent.
 The result of the trial was, as stated above, triumph for the Bell telephone and it's own CTS. It was held that the invention of the Refs instrument, or toy, had been pub ished in England, but that it was so different from the Bell instru ment that such publication could not be considered an anticipation of the latter. The instrument exhibited at Glasgow was one made by Mir. Bell. In 1876, when Sir WilGana Thomson was in attendance at the centennial exhibi ton in this country, Mir. Bell exhibited his telephone to him and gave him an instru- ment to take home. At the next meeting of the British association, Sir William Thomson spoke enthusiastically of the invention and exhibited the instrument given him by Pro- lessor Bell, although he could not make it work nor could anybody else. This was be- fore the English patent WAS secured. The court held that this was nevertheless pubi- cation. and the decision would have gone GI, T2~1I I,.-E e., the fact that the instrument actually patented contained improvements upon the instru- ment then exhibited of such importance as justified holding the patent good.
 Thus the Bell telephone holds it's own in England as in this country. There have been some big fights over it in both coun- tries and there will be more, for it is well worth fighting for.