The times., 1897-08-31

Argument in the wedderburn case was
begun yesterday. The case results froIa
an crder upon John wedderburn & CO. TO
show canse why the Commissioner of Pat
ents should not refuse TO recognize them as
patent agents
The order 10 show cause is in substance
d charge that the respondent corporation,
being emplc yed for valuable consideration
u make searches or examinations OF the
records OF the Patent Office TO determine
the probable patentability OF inventions
submitted 10 it, either willfuly or by
Ieasoa OF gruss and inc Ncusable negligence,
has failed to make proper and complete
searches or examinations Of the records Of
the Patent Office, with intent TO defraGd
ano with the result of cefrauding persons
10y wham 1t is so employed
Charles c. stauffer, law clerk for the
Patent Office, presented the case for the
prosecution. Ia support Of the charge that
the searches made 10y tile respondents Were
ineffective, Counsel Stauffer said:
III is evident from the fact that in
competent seanchers were employed ana
expected TO make an unreasonable number
OF searches each day, and from the fact
that no favorable reports were reviewed
prior to January /, 1897, and only occa-
siUaaIly thereafter that il was the deliber-
ate purpose of the respondents to send
favorable reports S 60 clients without regard
to the real novelty OF their inventions.
The evidence is clear on this point and
fully sustains the charge that this intention
on the part OF the respondents To send
favorable reports without real novelty
was carried into effect in the cases above
set forth, and amounts to gross nliscon-
cuct"
Attorney Stauffer then read the report
of searches, which. il is charged, respond
enUs made TO clients, Notwithstanding that
in many cases no eXamin alton had been
made OF no proper and complet= search had
been made. In support OF this charge
counsel said:
That this form of report was sent in all
cases in which a favorable report was
made by the searchers is admitted. That
this report was sent in one case Pell, in
which no search lad been made, IS ad
miuted in the answer OF the respondents
That this report was seat in two cases in
which no record Of search is found dp
pears from the testimony of Bond, cases
OF Reaaut and Buhn. That this report was
sent in two cases in which no search
was made is shown by the testimony Of
GCwans, and as TO one of these cases he
is corrObOrated by the witness Snyder.
That this report was sent in one case in
which a negligent search was made is ad
mitted in tie answer OF the respondents,
the Tuttie case. That this report was
sent in twenty five cases i'll which no
proper search had been made is admitted
IN the respondents answer and by the
testimony Of Bond, in six OF which cases
this report was seat subsequent TO January
I, 1897. That this report was sent by
the personal direction OF the respondent,
John Wedderburn, then and now the presi
dent Of The respondent corporation, in a
number of cases in which unfayorable re-
ports Eac been made by searchers, appears
from the uncontradicted testimony OF
ellis -
To show tie false and misleading reports
made TO clients by the respondents, A ttor-
ncy StaufGer reviewed briefly the testimony
In the cases Of Sooller, Sackett, Witte,
Purdy, Dressle and Mattern, Blackman and
Heggie, Thomas Erickson, Silnonet, Hever-
ly, Russell, Porter, Strahan, Tuttle, Faux
ner. Beardslee, Hawkins Bolles, Hilliard,
Hayden and Wurst. Bryant, Ganges and Col
lns, Buchanan, and bowling.
Attorney Stauffer argued in support OF
the charge thatthe respondents are engaged
in a fraudulent attempt &c unduly incite
unskilIed persons TO attempt 10 ma ke iH-
ventions.
Mr.. Stauffer was followed by Attornes
William Small He dwelt at length on
the literature Of the case, reading adver-
tisements inserted In newspapers by the
respondents pamphlets and circulars sent
out by them and many letters sent to
clients He denounced the firm in bittel
terms, alleging that their method was
a confidence scheme 10 rob the credulous
1t was a scheme conceived in sin and
born In iniquity. He said that morals
changed with times and climate, and he
was positive the morality of the respond.
ents belonged TO some other time THAI
this and to some other climate than ours
He charged that everything which the firm
caused to be printed was designed 10 II.is
lead, deceive and defraud. He charged
misf feasance and malfeasance on the par
Of the accused.
II the United States Patent Office per.
mitted this firm to practice before it, be
said, IL became papiceps criminiS. The
Patent office, as il had profited financial
ly by the processes Of Wedderburn had
played the part of a receiver of stolen
goods. If John " Wedderburn, he said, had
grain Of conscience left he could not
enjoy his iIlgotten gains. He alluded 10
what he termed the debunnair air and
brazenTy OF the accused. The respondents
had charged that this prosecution was ia
Epired by the jealousy of other patent
agents There was 10 other patent gent
he said, ho would change places witt
John Wedderburn. Ia closing he demanded
the disbaunent OF Yedderb and a
criminal prosecution of him at a later
date.
Attorney DoollUtle, on the part Of tb,
Patent Bar ssociatioI, closed the arEu
ment for the prosecution He smnme,
up some of the evidence against the &C
cuscd. He sought to show that the boas
made by the 'uneducated striplings era
ployed by Wedderburu," that they mad
eight or ten searches a day, was FRAUD
on its face This was impossible, pro
vided the work was properly done. II
charged tie accused with being ''ar
unsSlllful adventures" To state tina
eight OF ten searches a day are mad
By one man lis mere farce-a lie,' sal,
Attorney Doolittle- he charged tina
WedderbCrn WAS ''unscrupulous' and tina
he had ''besmircled the patent svster;
by the laying on OF unclean hands,
At 2;3o O'Clock the court took a reces
till 10 o'clock today, when Attorney For.
will open for the defense and will m