Morning journal and courier., 1885-08-04
@lisce1 1Ianen11s.
Important Notice
 TO PROPERTY OWNERS
 AND MANUFACTURERS! '!

Regarding the notice which appeared in the ''New Haven Daily Morning Journal and Cou1ier'' of July 24, and heretofore in other papers. over the signature of P. J. Clark, re- garding the Lewis Hand Fire Extinguisher, and claiming it to be an infringement of his patent on Hand Grenades we will call the attention of the public to the following diff ferent patent attorneys opinions:
 EPHRIAM BANNING, THOMAS A. BANNING,
 HUBERT A. BANNING,
 21 Park Row, New York BANNING & BANNING, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
 61 AND 62 HoNoRE BUILDING. SPECIALTY-Patent and Trade Mark Law.
 CHICAGO, Feb. 24, 1885. Mr. Charles W. Griffin, 175 Dearborn street, City:
 Dear Sir-We have examined the Samuel B. Johnson Patent No. 117,991, of August 8, 1871, and are very clearly of the opinion that "The Lewis Hand Fire Extinguisher" manufactured in accordance with the Eugene H. Lewis Patent, No. 307, ,475, of November 4, 1884, is not in any sense an infringement thereof.
 The Johnson Patent is expressly limited to a vessel adapted and intended to be thrown by hand projected by means of gunpow der, or otherwise, against or into the fire, when the vessel will burst or be brokon, this liberating the gas or acid and causing -it to come in contact with the fire, so as to ex- tinguish it. The Lewis Extinguisher is not adapted or intended to be thus thrown into the fire, but being grapsed by the hand is taken down by quick movement jerking out the stopper and it's contents are then sprinkled or showered over the fire. We consider both it's construction and operation to be entirely different from the construction and operation described and claimed by | Toh ah0 tafn c1 V of the opinion that it does not in any sense infringe on either claim of the Johnson Pat ent.
 It is also our opinion that the Johnson Pat ent can never be sustained in view of the English Patent of 1727 to Ambrose Godfrey, and the English patent of 1865 to Charles Benjamin Spaeth. Both these patents de- scribe a vessel adapted to be thrown into the fire and then to operate by explosion so as to permit the gasses to escape and extinguish the fire. This is especially true of the God frey invention. For these reasons we have no hesitation in advising that, so far as the Johnson patent is concerned, your clients will be perfectly safe in manufacturing and sell ing The Lewis Hand Fire Extinguisher. Very truly yours, BANNING & BANNING.
 NEW YORK, April 10 1885. Messrs. William B. Curtis & Co.,, Danbury, Conn.,:
 Gentlemen-In reply to your request for our opinion as to whether the Fire Extin- guisher manufactured by you under United States Letters Patent to E. H. Lewis, No. 3O7, ,475, of November 4, 1884, is infringe ment of Letters Patent No. IF, ,891, granted to s. B. Johnson, August 8, 1871. we would state that we have made @ careful examina- tion and comparison of the two patents and are clearly of opinion that it is not in any sense an infringement, nor does it approach -1~o41 sibly' be construed iuto infringement. A glance at the radically different nature of the claims covered by the two patents will show this conclusiyely. The Johnson patent is limited in express terms to projectile to be thrown into the fire and broken, either by force of contact or explosion by means of a fuse leading to ex- plosive material placed in chamber of the vessel for that purpose.
 In the Lewis patent, on the other hand, 1t is not contemplated or intended that the yes sel containing the extinguisher should be thrown into the fire, broken or exploded; but the extinguisher is to be grasped by the hand and by quick pull the stopper withdrawn, and the vessel still being held in the hand the contents are to be thrown on the fire by sprinkling through the perforated top of the vessel.
 We are further of the opinion that the Johnson patent is invalid in view of the fact that the claims thereof are covered by prior patents and fully described in numerous printed publications.
 We therefore advise you that no claim Of infringement of the Johnson patent can be successfully maintained against the Lewis Hand Fire Extinguisher.
 Yours truly,
 ROBERT JACKSON. Clarkson A. Collins, 160 Broadway, New York City:
 It is true that P. J. Clark did bring suit for infringement against Messr,. Hall & Martin at Chicago nearly one year ago and asked for an injunction, which was not sl- lowed, and up to the present time they have done nothing further except to continually threaten the public with suits if they pur- chase the Lewis, and notwithstanding we have sold hundreds of dozens they have nev- CT brought suit against anyone to our knowl- edge, and have no good grounds for so doing. We have retained MT. Robert Jackson and Clarkson A. Collins, of 160 Broadway, as our counsel, and will fully protest any and all purchasers of the Lewis Hand Fire Extin- guisher from us or our agents against any suits brought against them for infringements of the Grenade by P J. Clark, or any one else. We claim the LEWIS" to be the Simplest and Most Effective of any yet in troduoed, and we are ready and anxious to meet any of the others iii competitive test st aHy time ahd place.
 Yours respectfully,
 W. Es. CURTIS & G0.. Manufacturers If t4e t. H. F. BxtiHgaishef, sB Bt BANBURY, CONN.