Connecticut western news., 1888-01-11
WANTING IN NOVELTY.
THE BARRED WIRE FENCE PAT ENT DECLARED WORTHLESS.
Evidence That It Was Used For
 Fences About 1859.

The great barbed wire fence monopoly has fought it's hardest battle. The patent of Jo- seph T. Glidden, No. 157, ,124, issued November 24, 1S74 has hitherto been sustained in all legal contests, and the Washburn x Moen Con- pany has been enabled, through tho aid of the courts, to rule with an iron hand the produc- ton of the improved barbed wire in the coun- try, All manufacturers have been paying an immense royalty, and the farming community of the West has suffered greatly in conse- quence. As is generally known, the claim in the Glidden patent is the formation of barb on the fence. by means of short piece of wire coiled around it, and having sharp points thereon. The novelty clsimed to exist in the Glidden patent consists mainly in this mode of forming the barb. Four years ago company known as the "Beat Elm All Barbed Wire Company" now located at Cedar Falls Iowa, began the manufacture of barbed wire in 8 small way, and its greatest output has not exceeded one carload day. Following it's usual custom, the Washburn-Moen company filed bill for infringement of patent against Circuit Court for the Northern District of Iowa, asking for the usual writ of injunction.
 The Cedar Falls company maintained that as early as 1859 one Alvin Morley of Delaware county, Iowa, had mounted 8 wire fence with barb formed substantially in the samo man. uer as described in the Glidden letters patents that panel of this fence exhibited at county fair held in Delhi, Delaware county, in 1859, and that Morley constructed within two or three years afterward several pieces of fence of this description ill the.neighborhood. It is also claimed that between the years of 1860 and 1863 several other fences with barbs of similar construction were put up by others in Delaware county With this defense the suit l went to trial before Judge Shiras Dec. 2l. The evidence was all taken up by deposition, and covered about 1O, GOO typewriter pages
 The first evidence introduced gave a history of Morley, who was an eccentric old bachelor. T,,n L l-aR, coming to Iowa, he had been incarce' ated ill an insane asylum. and he died in similar in- stitution in 1867. Then followed testimony showing that Morley had invented and exhibit cd at the Delaware county fair in Delhi, ill 1859, a barbed wire fence. There was some doubt as to the exact date of the fair, but the weight of evidence fixed it as 1859 Is years be- fore the date of the Glidden patent. Some of the testimony as to the exhibition of the fence | at this fair was curious.
 One witness, whose testimony is of the great est importance, was at the time a blacksmith, ! and he assisted in putting the barbs upon the wire fence. He also testified that he made the machine at Morley's request, which was used in aifixing the barbs He explained the device, | and during his examination the notary ad- journed ill order to allow him to duplicate the contrivapce he used at that time. Going to 8 | blacksmith forge, he in short time produced l the simple kind of contriyance for winding the barb about the fence wire, and one which
  This man had also helped Morley to erect the section of fence exhibited at the fair.
 | Another very important witness for the Cedar Falls company was man named Potter. He testified that he was present at the fair, and, becoming interested in Morley's inven- | tion, held quite a conversation with the in ventor about the merits of the fence Morley | gave him piece of the fence wire, which he | took home with him and hung behind his kitch- en stove. A year later he took it down and | int f,r1,, ho1 1,ol oo ways stored curiosities and trinkets. It had remained in that trunk until the beginning of this controversy. He produced the identical piece of wire, and identified it as that given him by Morley at the time mentioned. This rusty bit of wire, which is more precious than 8 hundred times its weight in gold, was intro duced in evidence and is an exhibit in the case. It is not more than foot in length, but it contains two barb wires. The spur wires arc cut off obliquely, as are the improved barbs of around the main strand, with the points pro- l jecting in opposite directions Laying aside the rude workmanship, the piece exhibited shows as perfect a barb upon a fence wire as any that are manufactured to-day, though Morley used no retaining or binding wire, on which device there IS no existing patent.
 The evidence offered by the Washburn X Moen Company was largely negative. A son of Potter's testi6al he had been familiar with the contents of his fathers trunk, but had never seen the rusty piece of barbed wire tbere. It was claimed that Morley was about hali half-crazy, and incapable of making valuable invention. The patent he had obtained iu 1866 for movable cow-pen was introduced to show his lack of practical ideas, but this pieoF of evidence was really an injury to their casd as the specifications mention ''a win fence" for use in connection with the peI9 showing that Morleywas scogniEant that wirt could be used for fencing purposes.
 Judge Shiras, rendering his decision, found that Morley manufactured ba, bed wire of the pattern covered by the Gid lon patents, con trolled by the Washburn X Moen Company ano exhibited the same at fair held at Delhi, Del ware County, Iowa, in 1859 The decision nulliies the Glidden patent, the monopoly falls through and manufacturers will cease paying royalty. The case will be appealed te tho United States Supreme urt. The ground of nullfcation was want of novelty.