New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-02-17
THE ELECTRIC LIGHT CONTEST
WESTINGHOUSE AND EDISON RENEWING
THE STRUGGLE
MOTION FOR DELAY BY THE NEw.YoRK COM
PANY ARGUED, But NOT DECIDED, BY THE
UNITED STATES COURT IN PITrsBURG.

MOTION FOR DELAY BY THE NEw.YoRK COM
PANY ARGUED, But NOT DECIDED, BY THE
UNITED STATES COURT IN PIrTsBURG.
[BY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUSE.l
Ptsburg Feb l6.-Tho contest betye3n Edison ana
Westinghouse was renewed in the United states Ceur
today Judges Mozenna and Acheson were on inc
bench and there unusually large attendance
of persons interested in the fight between the two cur
poratons, both Of which claim to have tho exclusive
right to furnish electric illumination TO the peopie Oh
the United States. The was brought into court
bill filed in the interest Of the Westinghouse Com-
pany against the McKeesport Light Company, an
Edison oshoot, TO restrain the latter from infringe
ment on letters patent alleged to be held by the PLAIN
tifs On Saturday the case came up before Judge
Acheson on a motion made by the Westinghouse Con-
pany to fix a time for final hearing on the motion
for permanent injunction. Mr.. Walter X. Grimm,
Of NewYork, representing the Edison Company asked
that at least two months additional time should be
allowed to take evidence. Congressman John Dazeli'
Of this city, the part Of the Westinghouse interest,"
opposed the notion but It was finally determined to
give the Edison Company week in which to pre-
pare aidavits in support Of the motion for exte-
sion of time.
Whom tho court opened to-day there was present a
long array of legal talent On the part Of the West
lnghouse Company there appeared General s. A.
Duncan and j. II. Curtis, of New-YorS; John DslEeI,
william Bakewell, George II. Christy and T. b. Kerr
Of this city; while for the Edison Company Grover
P. Lowrey, Richard NJ Dyer and Walter X. Gnnin all
Of New-York were present. The argument was
opened by blr Griffin, who made the formal motion
that the Edison Company should have at least TWO
months time In which TO prepare evidence IN deiehce
OF the suit In support Of bis motion he read Adsvlts
from Professor Barker. of tho University OF PenDsy
vania; President Johnson. Of the Edison Company
and Judge Noah Davis, OF New-York There was also
.r,f. ncal
of the Edison Company who proven ted from bcing
present to-day because he was engaged In a suit Ia
Chicago in which the Pullman vestlbule patents
were involved The aaidavfts set forth that n
would be unjust TO the Edison Company
to force decree on the testimony
given in tho case against the MeKcesport
Company because In closing tho evidence In that
they had acted upon advice that there nothing
to answer in tho bin. The affidavit Of Professor
Barker asserted that the claims Of sawyer and Mann
had not been sustained, and that the invention had
been anticipated before the atters patent had been
issued. President Johnson I'm his affidavit stated that
the company was anxious 10 have final and COM
plets decision made the rival claims. In the Nc
Keesport case however, under legal advice, no tesn'
mony was presented except copy Of nn article pub
shed In Ecw.York paper IN which 70 was shown tna'
Edison had claimed to be the inventor OF the device
for lighting embraced I'm the Sawyer Mann patents
1
the latter After Mr.. Griffin had concluded the read
Ing OF the afldsvits Congressman Dalzen asked II II
was necessary to present any Adayits in opposition
10 the notion Judge McKennsn said that II the
Westinghouse Company had any ahdavits, they shouia
be given now, as Il would close na'
branch NJ the proceedings General . y.
Duncan Of Eew-York SAID that they had some AM
davits, but there would be moro In the nature oi
argument against the extension OF time for taxing
testimony The aHdavlts were made by Mr. kemps'
| a former examiner in tho Patent ONCE; Frank l.
Pope and Mr. Broadenax, the principal attorney nor
sawyerMann. Messrs. Kemple and Pope averrcd that
the claims Of Sawyer and Mann had bran snsiaifed
By the Patent ofice Br. Broadenax In bis @hdAvis
gave statement OF the struggle between Edison aud
Sawyer and Mann for the patent, and cited the Do
cisions rendered I'm favor Of the latter. He also
averrcd the policy Of the Edison interest was to defer
a final decision on tho question involved He claimed
that the defendant should be held to the testimony
and answer submitted by them in the proceedings
against the McKeesport Company. Mr Grimm argued
81 some length In support Of his motion, and was fol-
lowed by Congressman Dazell in opposition. lie
said the question involved whether or not the
DEFENDANT after having closed his case should DO
allowed TO open II up and go over tho enure
ground again lie said It was absurd 10 argue
that a defendant, after eloctng 10 attack certain
point In the case should be allowed 10 have another
chance because he failed 10 open up an intenninaoie
line OF defence The Edison counsel had advised the
McKeesport corporation how 10 proceed, ana ~ Iney
thought they could prove a priority OF lnvenuon w
favor OF Edison, they rested their case Trey snous
further time The court took the papers and reserved
ltg decision.