Evening star., 1896-04-01
INGENIOUS SWINDLE
An Inventor Sells His Device a
Dozen Times.
he MADE MANY THOUSANDS BY IT
Patent Attorneys in This City Saw
the Man.
N o CLU E F o U N D

A scheme to defraud which extended to
various cities throughout the country, and
in which a number of people in all those
cities fell victims in varying sums, in
Guiding 81 200 by an Atlanta investor, has
been discovered by the patent office Off
cials. The scheme Is the sale of a 9art
interest in an alleged thill-coupler inven-
tion the purported inventor disappearing
after taking the purchase money and leav-
ing all the expenses for the investor.
Twelve different applications from eleven
cities, accompanied by drawings. which
show that they were all made from the
same aluminium model, are already on file
here, and the name of the inventor varies
in each case. except in two sets of papers
forwarded by different attorneys in Les
Angeles. Cal. Joseph Evans, J. Evans,
Porter Potter, and, it is said. Jacob Owen
OF Duluth, are among the names used, and
the cities operated in, SO far as the rec
ords show, are as follows: Portland, Ore.
Memphis, Tenn; New Orleans, La: At
lanta, Ga; Grand Rapids, Mich; Milwau-
kee. Wis; Seattle, Wash: San Francisco,
Los Angeles; Duluth, Mich, and Houston,
Texas.
Most of the victims bought half inter
est in the invention. singular feature is
the fact that punishment can only be made
after proof that the operator had sold an
interest in more than the whole of the
patent, and to prove this would mean the
gathering Ol IHTee men from three OF tiGSe
widely separated cities, in view of the half
Interest generally assigned. Even then the
operator could be prosecuted only on the
petty charge of obtaining money by false
pretenses. Meanwhile, in the absence of
further papers, action on all the cases is
suspended.
No Clue to the Swindlcr.
There is no clue to the present where
aboats of the swndler. nor can any one
make even probable guess as to his name.
The first name that appeared in the patent
office was owen, the last one is Porter Pot
ter. Evidently the same man has signed
each Of tie twelve applications for a pat
ent, the handwriting being the same. al
though Il different name was used in each
case. The fellow seams 20 nave worked his
game by stopping two or three months III
each city, where he doubtless made the ac-
quaintance Of some carriage builder or
liveryman, and while staying in the place
pretended to make his invention. Then,
working his victim into a belize in it, he
would take him to some local patent attor-
rey. That attorney would send the draw
rgs on to an attorney in Washington to
make an examination. Local attorneys
who have seen the thill-coupler device say
1t has merit Of course being new and meri-
torious, and the Washington patent attor-
ley. not asking any questions Of the palent
office as to previous applications, would
make a favorable report. Then the vic
hesitatingly put in his money.
How the Cases Came Here.
The Houston case came here to Mr.. Ar
thur W. Harrison, a well-known attorney,
through Wright, Brown & Quimby of Bos-
ton, to whom it was sent by one of their
correspondents in Houston. The Atlanta
case came directly to E. B. Stocking. The
Duluth case came through Howard G. I'm
derwood of Milwaukee, formerly a patent
attorney in Washington. Both Mr.. Stock
ing and Mr. Underwood saw the man and
could identify him. Mr.. Stocking said to-
day that the fellow was an old telegraph
operator, and his left hand and arm were
paralyzed. AS it will take at least three
of the parties victimized by the swindler
to join in case against him, and the CO.
operation of the patent office would be
necessary, the testimony Of the attorneys
who saw the man is of the greatest i'm
portance. The government placed the first
six cases in interference when the attor-
neys, who sent in the cases, were asked for
affidavits from the inventor and the as
signees ss to the time when the invention
was made, the assignees replied that they
could not find the inventor, that he had
left the town and they did not know where
he was
The subsequent applications being evil
IDENTIFY the work of the same man the de-
par tment simply left them on file without
declaring any interference. AS the law
stands, the assignee in the first case can
put the thing through and get a patent,
but all the rest will lose whatever they
paid. The scheme was most ingenious
one showing far greater ingenuity than
the device itself, and the fellow who work.
ed it has made a good many thousand dol
lars more out OF it than he would if he
had stayed honest and got a patent for
himself.
1t Is believed the fellow is still trying to
work his game and an effort will be made
to trap him. He sent on in the Houston
case his alumie,tm model. and asked to
have it returned to him, which was done.