The herald., 1896-10-05
A Small Device Has Caused End.
less Litigation
GAUrHIER PATENT ATOMIZER
Met BY the WiIgus Patent Laws
Sprinkler
Both Devices Used in Thousands Of
Homes-Passed Upon in the Circuit
Court and in the Court Of Appeals

less frequency has any allusion been
made to the peculiarities Of litigants who
In taking advantage Of the law assist
quite as largely in tangling up the stat
ute book as do the courts in drawing fine
distinctions between tweedledum and
.tWeedledee.
There are people. and lots Of them,
who regard the law courts with all the
consideration accorded the evil one, and
who, to judge from their actions, appear
to think their feet would be blistered IL
they trod within the halls where the
blind goddess is supposed to hold the
scales with impartial hand. Others,
again. are Of such a litigious tempera-
ment that they are never happy saving
when doing battle in court. To these
an adverse decision means little, for the
same question may be made, by the in
genious mind Of clever attorney, to
take new guise and form the basis Of an
other suit
A case illustrating this was recently
filed in the United States circuit court
and, without desiring to dogmatize re-
garding its merits, there are certain
facts regarding 1t which are of general
interest, presenting. as they do, some
details which curiously illustrate the
truth Of what has been said above.
n A. MuLTUM IN PARVO CASE.
VA Short time ago the Newton Manu-
fAothring Co. filed suit against d. c..
Wilgus for the purpose Of obtaining
damages from the defendant for his
having infringed the rights Of the plain
THIS to q patented device for a water
sprinkler. The contentious of the plain
TIN were given at length by The Herald
at the time and nothing further need be
said in this regard beyond the mere
mention Of the fact that the Newton
Co. claim right to the device under the
patent granted to the inventor Gauthier.
That Frenchman's idea appears to have
been to devise an atomizer for spraying
trees and shrubs, and the wider appli-
cation Of his device to lawn sprinklers
was not, very possibly. in his mind at
all when he took out his first patent in
1885,
Wilgus, however. in putting upon the
market his patented device for lawn
sprinklers, contended that his invention
in no wise infringed the patent of the
Frenchman Gauthier, but differed from
1t In certain very essential particulars.
But over this, on its face, very simple
question, lawsuit after lawsuit has been
fought. So far as can be learned, Will
gus has had the best of 1t, although SO
far as mere judgments so, honors are
even. In the suit of Wilgus vs.. the Ger
main Fruit Co., judgment went for the
plaintiff for $500 and costs; Wilgus VS..
Harper, Reynolds & Co., judgment was
given for the plaintiff for S123S. Al and
costs; Wilgus VS.. E. Germain ct al,
judgment went to the defendant for
costs, and in the suit Of e. German ct
al. VS.. D. c. Wilgus, judgment went for
the defendant for costs. s1.
One at least Of these suits was carried
to the United States circuit court of ap-
peals and resulted in the judgment of
the lower court being affirmed in favor
of Wilgus.
a Now the Newton Co. Of this city has
thrown down its gage into the arena of
legal strife and challenged Wilgus to
prove his right to manufacture, sell or
in any way handle the small but very
important article of general utility in
cluded In certain lawn sprinklers
HITTING I.ARD AT THE OPPOSI-
TION.
This has been done in circular, of
which the following Is part:
The Newton Manufacturing company
having acquired all the right, title and
interest in and to the patent for an in
vention covered by letters patent of the
United States numbered 336,12l. desires
to inform you that, in an action number
ed 1928 in the circuit court of the United
States, ninth circuit, southern district
of California, a judgment was rendered
and entered that the Wilgus sprinkler,
covered by letters patent Of the United
States numbered 443, 7S4 was an adapta-
tion Of the invention covered by our pat
ent, and upon appeal therefrom the
United States circuit court of appeals
for the ninth district, on the 10th day OF
February, 1896, affirmed that Judgment,
and no motion for a rehearing having
been f1eled It. becomes proper to warn
you not to sell, manufacture or dispose
81 the "Wilgus." Cactus" or any
sprinkler involving the same mechanical
construction, unless authorized by this
company or it's licensees.
All persons who have sold, manufac-
tured or. disposed of the same, or who
may hereafter do SO, are liable to, and
will be held liable for, damages there
for.
A perusal of this document conveys
To- the lay mind the conviction that the
world bestirring question had been de-
cided by the circuit court. and that for
ever after the man Wilgus, with his tin
pot patent, had to take back seat. But
,sflkhtstfere is where the opposition gets
ia It's fine work and calm the souls Of
rater familias vpho, each evening in his
shirt sleeves, gives the thirsty flowers
a long drink by means Of the Wilgus
device.
s Eminent authority in the east was
engaged to pass upon the merits of the
case, by firm from whom Wilgus
claimed royalties, and have stated that
"after carefully examining the Gau-
thier patent, am positively Of the opin-
lon that, without doubt. you do not in
fringe the Gauthier patent, and that the
claim made against you is with
out shadow Of right. most
positively assert that the I'm
tied States circuit court Of appeals,
in the case referred to in the circular,
did not decide that a lawn sprinkler such
as you are making and selling. being
such as referred to, infringes the Gau-
thier patent"
After this one can breathe again in
the thought that the world still wags,
despite the contentious between these
legal combatants.
The authority quoted above, and who,
having been appealed to by firm here
in the hope, apparently. that his opinion
would be adverse to the Wilgus claim,
and thus save to them a considerable
sum that they would otherwise be called
upon to pay out in royalties. concludes
his opinion with no uncertain words of
advice:
TAKE COMFORT AND PAY UP
I'm conclusion" he writes. II desire to
say that the claim made against you by
the Newton Manufacturing company
is without warrant and Is wholly unjust
and that the circular of March l006 re,