The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-12-17

,.are Hanford yesterday issued an Or
= fhs case OF the Bowers Dredging
es~ranv. Aiphonzo r. Bowers and john
rrown VS.. the New York Dredging
s.-ssnv. John Doe, Richard Roe. Rob
:. Rec. william Roe. j. y. c. Lockwood
- John Doe Gridiey. in which an appll-
..,sss for an injunction II denied
~ application By the Bowers company
.-s.as; the New York Dredging Com
~ ras for an alleged infringement OF
rsissd States patent Si8. $50. for dredg-
- machinery. granted TO Aipbonzo y.
bsers.
rae operation OF the San Francisco
| rrssra Company, lessees OF the dredger Of
- New York Dredging Company In the
| rxte Of Washington. was the first cause
q acton The contracts that the govern
rert let for barbor Improvements at
olympia, Everett ard Swinomish slough
ssrs bid for By the contendlng parties To
- prssent action. and the awarding OF
~ contracts 20 the New York company
ssS the sub-lettIng 20 the San Francisco
TrAxe Company were published at the
Aus 10 the Post-Inteillgsncer. e1bseQuent
% the contracts the intentiop1 OF D. San
Franc.sco Bridge Company/to make the
ins tow At sea Of the dred4er. fTp-San
Francisco to Puget sound. AirnDsSd tire
subject OF an article in1 thk<aper. ID
sssea sea tows Of similar Machines hab
hen made. As soon az wora was COZ
rsnced at Olympia the present b ction is
kxun In the United States cirSilt cdJrE.S
r Percy Wright. of California asd ~
{ Hughes represented rhs NV work
predginE Company, while John II Miller
asd Campbell e. Powell appeared for tho
Bowers company. Mr.. Wright. who left
Hf California Sunday. In one OF the lead
Ms patent lawyers OF thar state. The case
~ deemed OF sufiiea nt Importance, and
IS abilities as q specialist il patent prae-
Do 60 generally well recognized. that ne
sas sent from San Francisco 20 manage
&c case for the New York Dredging
Company IN this court. Mr.. Wright has
Ep STAINED some prominence from the
net that he was tho author OF the cele-
in;ed Wright irrigation law. the consti-
sssionallty OF which has Just been decided
n ne United States supreme court. after
arms years OF litigation. While Mr..
Wight was IN the city an attempt was
MADE 70 get sl.s views as 10 the leading
failures OF this law ana the probable re-
Elb that viii follow It's operation. His
tine was SO fully occupied with legal mat
mrs. however, mat II was impossible 10
pcure an interview on tbs subject.
ne fail text or Judge Hanford's opinion
h Is follows:
I'll. patent upon which this suit Is
tsanded Is described In the opinion OF
ssags McKsnna, In the case OF Bowers vs..
fen Schmidt 50 Fed. Rep. hz5-5as. The
M % complaint and affidavits on part OF
NJ complainsnts show that ths Bowers
pssdKsng Company is corporation or
panied under the laws OF the state Of IL
lzois. and u operating and transacting
badness In the state Of Washington, and
tg 40 assignment from the patentee. mas
NJ sole rssht 20 use this Invention GOV
srsa BY the above mentioned letters pat
sht within the boundaries OF the state Of
Fsshington, except At Gray's harbor.
that said patent was duly issued 10 Al
shenzs =. Bowers In the year IsSs. and
tkss ssnce the date thereof the utility and
vaue OF the patented invention has been
FfcoEnlzsd and admitted by many persons
Interested I'm the use Of machinery fer
dredging and deepening the channels or
has been successfully used In numerous
places within the United States. and large
amounts Of capital have been expended
IN the construction OF machinery accord
inF 10 the specifications and drawings OF
ssi8 patent. and operated successfully un-
tss Aeens-sfromth the pat entee. that large
number Of quits and actions have been
commenced and prosecuted for infringe
msrts q said patent which suits and ac-
tens have been compromised and settled:
thai u suit Ia equity upon said patent
BY Alphnnro " Bowers against A. w
Won schmiAs. In the United States circuit
court for the Northern district OF Cali
sornis. after . trial upon tho merits. n
decision and decree was rendered BY the
said court in favor of said bowers and
afainst Won Schmidt, whereby the 10Th,
bih, 18th. ksd. Faith and Eath claims of
said patents we're upheld, and the validity
thereof established. that subsequently an
action ~ law and a suit In equity we're
commenced IN the United States circuit
- o a. IA sautt
fernls. BY the said Aiphonzo n, Bowers,
against The San Francisco Bridge Conn
fany Tor Infringing the several claims Of
sato patent above enumerated. by nSing
certain dredging vessel and machinery
named the Atlas, and sometimes called
ne Oakland, that IN said action ana suit
equity the defendant therein. in its
selehses disputes the validity Of said
lasent; bur no attack upon said patent In
~ judicial proceeding has been success
W. ans great deal or testimony mas
been taken. 10 be used upan the final hear
~ IN the said suit In equity. WATCH. IN
lae opinion OF counsel, Is amDlv sufficient
g establish the validity OF said patent.
ne nili OF complaint also AYERS that the
NeN York Dredging Company has entered
re contracts for dredging IN the harhers
~ oiymnls and Everett. and I'm Swinefn-
80 slough. within this state, which con-
uscss We're obtained by bidding In com
Ss1lton against the complainant. the
hersfs Dredginr Company. and that in
=
sfrdsans machine called the Atlas. witch
IN infringement OF said patent. and -
tas denttcal dredgar Involved In the fiti-
Iacn with the San Francisco Bridge
,ehnanf, above mentioned. Il being used.
al shst by the use 81 said infringing ma
snsaeFy during the penaency ~ this suit
- bcwsrs Dredging Company VIII suffer
ssnsgss. Tor which there exists no ada-
vac remedy at law.
The defendants. without having en-.
nefst the hlll OF complaint have by AZ
ssasfFs denied the equities Of the bill. ~
ssxsns thar tbs said patent il void fer
49, % novelty and Inventions ana II
ssss Al all. the same does not cover nor
~ " the compliments any right 20
aosrsy 81 the Use 81 such machinery as
asseadants are using, and they deny
80 ths machinery In the dredging ma
.As called the Atlss IN any Wise In
ahsas The aforesaid patent lt ls also
800 on behalf Of the defendants that
ssNsw Dredging Company is not eHgag.
= making The improvements referred
ser N the use Of the dfsd ger Atlas uHs
a. having CD aimed contracts for maxi
said improvements has suh-lei TIA
- 80 @ the Ssn franctsca Bridge Com
-. TIE defendant IN The action ana Suft
seefs rtferre8 20 The defendants also
s that the decision and decree IN the
$50 oi Bowers ~ Won Schmidt. shave
1870 u, has been IN effect Suspended
= ne taking % an appeal IN Sait cause
- circuit court % appeals for tse
49, circuit, and that said cause rem2ias
sssssefnine3 and penaiug IT. said An-
nass court. sad they Slso sAeg taAt
eoftsnt evidence not submitted upon
ria AZ sid cause IN The United
80 circuit court fer the Northeru dis
- " California. has eHeN Glscas esef.
A. can Re now produces, whereby
can provs that the said Ailments
ssstrs was not fh- original snd nfeB-
e.SNeasor o. machinery Tor excav afsnS
- water sHf eRrTVlnE tire nga teFtaf
So Set deposltins The same A.
49, fn one operation. Nv az tr8u-ic
49, ana a5niS Sphpgic pressure hlft on
a. sStlSrsry' improvements w apparatus
al s@islag mud aad sell frer Fha bottoms