The evening times., 1897-09-02

| Argument was resumed In the Wedder-
burn case this morning by F. w. Winter,
| OF counsel for the prosecution.
| lie had no excuse, he said, to make II
| he made bad job ofthis case, it was not
because he was in ili-heaith.
| lie felt that because of the ability OF
| counsel OIL the other side they
could argue their side very much betteI
| than counsel for the prosecution could.
| Nr. Winter, in defining the jurisdiction
! of Commissioner Butterworth over John
| Wedderburn, maintained that the firm
| OF John weddcrburn & Company have
| practiced before the Patent Office. He
called up two applications for patents,
made by John Wedderburu Co." In
reply 10 Attorney Foru's point that u cor
poration could not practice law; ''be that
as 1t may" he said, 1.-The corporation Is
responsible for the acts of its agent"
| Mr. Winter held that the Commissioner
of Patents had Jurisdiction over the manner
in which o patent agent secured his prac-
tice.
| Commissioner Butterworth held that this
was a good point.
| When a man had committed an unlawful
| act the la presumed that IL was done with
unlaw rul intent. The prosecution did not
have to prove unlawful intent.
| He asserted that in every case of finally
| rejected application a letter was sent to
the client directing the method OF appeal
and that this letter vas misleading. He
| read from authorities TO show that IL an
attorney did not perform his duty with
skill 1t was a fraud upon his client.
He held that Wedderburn had not sustain
ed to his clients the relationship which
should be sustained by a true ATTORNEY y
toward his client.
Suppose said Attorney Winter, that
| Wedderburn has to a certain degree, re-
conted. shall he escape punishment for the
wrong that he did?''
Attorney Winter charged that improper
searches were made. On this point he said:
THAT these improper searches were due
to gross Negligence or deliberate Intention
on the part OF the respondent corpora ton
is shown 10y the fact, admitted by Bond,
that some Of these searcheTs were incOm-
petent In the early part OF 1897 seachers
were expected TO make nine searches n
day, and is shown by the fact that In the
early part OF / S97 during the time that
the witness Bond was In charge OF the
search department. an average OF seven
and one-half searches a day is shown by
the office records OF the respondents to
have been made.
This number or searches Is a larger
number than can properly be made by
seacchers who are experts. The employ
ment OF incompetent searchers and the re-
requirements that such searchers should
make on an average from seven and one
half to twelve searches a day is clear and
| convincing proof that the respondent
corporation did not intend OF expect that
such searches should be proper and com
plete."
He charged that this Constituted fraud
upon clients
Attorney Winter maintained that the
twenty-five cases of improper searches said
to have been proved against the respond
ents were drawn from seventy-fiye Wed
erburn searches, instead Of 3.700. as
claimed by the defense.
lie took up the matter Of advertising, and
charged that 1t was dishonest, untruthful
and Misleading.
He charged that 1.-THE respondents are
engaged in a fraudulent attempt 10 un-
duly incite unskilled persons to attempt
co make Inventions"
Under this head, Attorney Winter said:
1.-The circular entitled Prizes on Patents,
partIcularly W hen tax en- In connection with
the pamphlet, 200 Inventions Wanted,
copies Of Which were sent topper sons making
inquiries respecting the 81. 500 prize, Is
calculated to produce this effect