The western sentinel. [volume] (Winston-Salem, N.C.) 1887-1926, 1895-11-07
WINSTON WINS AGAIN
JUDGE DICK RENDERS A DECIS.
ION AGAINST DANVILLE.
Eight of Winston's Tobacco Manufac-
turers Down the Carter CASING
Machine Company-Extracts
From the Lengthy Decision.

winston wins again
This refers to the long and holly
| contest suit brought by the Carter
Casing Machine Company, Of Dan
vile, against eight of Winston's
tobacco manufacturers-P. FL. Hanes
& Co, B. f. Hanes, Frank Bohannon,
w. A. Whitaker, T. L. Vaughn & Co.,
Bailey Bros, w. W. Wood & Co. and
Brown Bros.
The case came up before Judge Dick,
of the United States court, in Green's
boro, on October I'd. Able counsel
was employed on both sides. The de.
cisiOn was rendered Saturday in favor
of the Winston manufacturers, and
taxes all costs on the Danvjlle com
pany.
The suit virtually was Winston vs..
Danville. The Danville manufacture
ers interested in the Carter Machine
Company can now console themselves
by adjusting all losses connected with
their fight.
The Carter Machine Company have
patent on tobacco casing machipe
which they claimed had been infringed
upon by the Winston manufacturers
who are using machines invented and
made by Mr.. j. @. Frost, of this city.
The latter claimed that his machine
had been patented but the patent was
! never issued. The suit was tried in
the name of P. H. Hanes s. Co. as a
test case.
EXTRACTS FROM DECISION.
The following extracts are given
from Judge Dicks very voluminous
decision:
Independent of the numerous au-
thOrties upon the subject l am Of
| opinion that the suggestions OF COM
mon sense, the dictates of reason and
| principles of common justice and
| equity would warrant me in deciding
| in this case that useful and val
| liable machine consisting of an
| aggregation and arrangement Of old
and well known elements and devices
| previously employed in machines con-
| structed under expired patents; does
not infringe upon the rights of pat
entee who has a machine constructed
| in accordance with his claims and
| specifications which will not and
| cannot be made to operate practically
and usefully in the manner and form
designed, and accomplish the purpose
| for which it was intended.
| A casual inspection and comparison
| of the models of the respective ma
CulucS vi COtu
| clearly show that defendants have not
appropriated any element, device or
| arrangement invented by patentee or
J claimed to be improved by his me-
| chanical knowledge and skill.
The reasonable and just doctrine is
| well settled that when patent has
been obtained for combination after
| the patentee has availed himself of
| all the knowledge derivabIe from a
series OF existing devices of similar
| character the claim must be restrict
| ed to the precise form and arrange
ment of parts described in specifica-
tions. Such patent is an entirety
! and all the parts of the combination
| must be used in order to constitute an
infringement.
| The pdtentee in his description dis
| tinctly claimed an automatic feed
hopper and peculiar spray device
located within the spray drum. The
defendants have dispensed with the
a different spray device located out
SIDE of spray drum and there
fore do not infringe the peculiar
! combination and entire machine OF
| patentee On this subject it
is sufficient for me to refer to what
! have heretofore said-the defendants
machine has combination and
arrangement that works well and
satisfactory-whi the patented ma
chine is practically imperative and
worthless, and has been abandoned by
| its owner.
/ am aware of the fact that I have
made several repetitiOns of legal
| principles in this opinion but ]
| deemed such course necessary to meet
the various phases of the case pre-
sented in the pleadings AND
voluminous proofs, and in the able
arguments and elaborate briefs OF
counsel. After full consideration
am very decidedly of opinion that the
weight of evidence and the equitable
principles involved are on the side Of
defendants.
Let decree be drawn dismissine
comp!ainants bill with costs.