The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-03-20
other means than an electric speaking tel

other means than an electric speaking tel
ephonc.
We decide that Drawbaugh's defense
has not been made out. The chief justice
then took up the charge OF fraud and col
lnsion in the patent office, by means of
which Bell, it is alleged, obtained surrept-
tious information with regard to the invcn-
tons OF his rivals and then amended his
own specifications.
Upon this point the court says:
We entertain no doubt whatever that
the specification as now found in the
patent is precisely the same as that on
which the order to issue the patent was
made. and the fair copy which IL now
found on the files of the office is precisely
MS II was when the order for the patent
was granted. Not shadow of suspicion
can rest on any one growing out OF the
misprint of the specification in the Dowd
case.
The chief Justice then reviewed briefly
the case OF the Bell Telephone company
against the Molecular Telephone company,
which involves one Of the claims Of the
patent issued 10 Bell June 80 1877. The
court below held that the fifth claim OF
this patent was anticipated by Schellen
Magnet. Bells patent, the court holds,
was not for the magnet for the telephone,
OF which II formed part. To that extent
the decree in that case was erroneous. IL
follows that the decree in each OF the cases,
so far rs IL is in favor OF the Bell company
and those claiming under il, must be
affirmed, and that the decree in the
Molecular case, so far az Il is against that
company on the full claim OF the patent OF
January 30, 1877, must bo reversed and a
decree directed 10 that extent In its favor.
II Is 10 ordered
Justices Bradley, Field and Harlan dis.
sented. Their dissent Is based upon the
Dawbaugh claim, and they are Of the
opinion that the evidence Overwhelmingly
shows that Drawbaugh WIS the first in
ventor OF the speaking telephone. JUS
tices Gray and Lamar did not sit in these
cases, and the court stood four TO three in
favor Of the Bell patent.
LAMAR's FIRST DECISION.
Immediately after the conclusion OF the
reading OF the opinions in the telephone
cases, Justice Lamar began tho reading OF
OF his flrst opinion as n member OF the
United States supreme court the case de-
cidcd being No 1853, the Missouri River
Packet company vs.. the Hannibal 4 ST..
Joe Railroad company. The point in
volvcd was the construction 10 be given 10
a law OF Congress authorizing the building
OF bridge for the use OF the railroad com.
pany across the Missouri river at Kansas
City. The judgment OF the supreme court
Of Missouri In favor Of the Hannibal x
81. Joe railroad was affirmed.
A decision was also rendered In tho
case Of Bowman Bros. Va. the Chicago &
Northwestern railroad company which
involves the validity Of the Slate Of Iowa
forbidding railroad company 10 bring
intoxicating liquor into that State unless
such company has been furnished with a
certificate from the county auditor 10 the
county 90 which liquor u 10 be trans
ported, showing that the consignec IN le-
gnlly authorized 10 sell IL. The court
holds that the power TO regulate or forbid
the sale Of commodity after II has been
brought into State docs not carry with
| II the right and power 10 prevent It's intro
duction by transportation from another
State. The section Of the Iowa statute O
April 5, 1885, which prohibits railroa'
companies from bringing liquor into tn
State II therefore declared TO be invali,
and the Judgment Of the United State
| circuit court iof the northern district %
Illinois Is reversed. The chief justice
Justices Gray and Harlan dissenicd.
A decision was also rendered by the
court In the case Of the city Of Chicago w.
| Catharine A. Taylor ct al. This was d
suit for damages based upon injuries al
legged 30 have been caused 10 property by
the construction Of a sewer OF Eighteenth
street In Chicago. The judgment OF III,
circuit court In favor OF the complainant h
affirmed.
A decision was also rendered In the
cases Of William II. Tomkins vs. the Lit
tie Rock q Fort Smith railroad, ct al, and
William s. Williams vs.. the Little Rock,
Mississippi 4 Texas railway ct al. The
railways In these cases were aided In 1885
by loan Of the States credit In the shape
ol State bonds. The bonds were subse
quently declared invalid aud the State In
1873 ceased 10 pay interest on them. The
bondholdcrs will seek 90 have tho bond,
declared an equitable lien upon the rail
roads although the latter since the bond,
were issued have passed into new handl
for the companies have been rcorganized
This court holds that the new companies
took the roads free coiincumbrancc aud tha
neither the State nor its bondholdcn m,
entitled 10 n scqucstmiion Of the inoom,
and revenues of the roads In order tia
the bonds may be paid. The decree o.
the circuit court IN each Of the cases I
affirmed.
These cases are said TO involve scycm
million dollan.