The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-02-06
THE CRIMPING DEVICE.
AN OPINION ABOUTITBY THE Z. s.
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
The Bonsack Cigarette N aehine Injunction
Gaze 10 Sustsined--A Namb Of Other
Cases Disposed OF,
The February term Of he United States
Circuit Court of Appeals began

The February term Of he United States
Circuit Court of Appeals began
here yesterday, with Judges Gon.
Slmonton. Hughes and Seymour on
the Iench Justice Fuller will be
here later. a large batch OF opin-
ions were handed down, one of the most
interesting Of which in this session was
that of W. A. Hulse and X. H. Wright
against the Bohsack Machine Company.
Wright was a large stakeholder in the
company. and its general manager with
an interest in its business in foreign
lands. Hulse was employed as a car
penter, but was afterwards assigned TO
work under Wright in China, While
there he saw a French machine which
put him upon the idea of an improve
ment to tie Bonsack machine by v nich
a crimping device could be substituted
for paste in making cigarettes. He
notified the company of Ills discovery
and was given opportunity 10 perfect
the device. which he did. He disposed
OF an interest in his invention to Wright
and then they offered TO sell IL to the
company for $4,000. But il happened
that Hulse was under a contract with
the Bonsack Company to promote the
interests OF the company, and in case
he should make any Improvement I'm the
machine, the same should be for the eX-
elusive use OF the company. The COM
pany, therefore, called his attention to
this fact. but offered TO pay literally
for the invention. Hulse and Wright
then offered to sell the invention TO a
rival cigarette machine company, and
an injunction was obtained against them
in a state court. The case then went into
the United States Circuit Court. and the
Injunction was perpctuatcd. The case was
then appealed.
The Appellate Court oVerrules all the
objections and orders that the decree of
the Circuit Court be affirmed in all re-
spects, each party paying its own costs
in this court.
Counsel for Hulse and Wright Monday
night telegraphed mere. Withdrawing the
case, but the Court held that the case
was already I'm the haLds of the Court and
must be passed upon. Opinion by Judge
SimontOn.
other cases were disposed Of as follows:
Phoenix Insurance Company. Of Brooklyn,
y. y. plaintiff In error, against Charles
ton Bridge Company. error to Circuit
Court of South Carolina, affirmed. Opin-
ION by Judge Goff
American Fire Insurance Company, of
New York. plaintiff in error. against
Charleston Bridge Company. Error to
Circuit Court of South Carolina, affirmed.
Opinion by Judge Con-.
Phoenix Insurance Company. of New
York. plaintiff H. error, against Wilcox
< Gibbs GuanU Company error 10 Cir
cult Court OF South Carolina, affirmed.
Opinion by Judge Morris.
In these cases the defendant companies
held that the property at issue was de-
stroyed by the tide and not by the cyclone
as alleged The court below le the facts
70 the decision of the jury and the YER
dict In each case was against the COM
pany. Appeal was taken from the ruling
OF the court
Elizabeth Myer and others against
James /. Kuhn and others. appeal from
the Circuit Court Of West Virginia, at