The times., 1897-09-02
SOME SINS OF OMISSION
Brief of the Prosecution Neither
Frank Nor Accurate Method of
Introducing Testimony Criticised
Defendant Simply Exercised the
Rights Claimed In Other Business

tiils ease. Ine Gel efulnlS Htl csS-l Hottlleh
by tie Commissioners TO appear and show
cause Why they should not be disbarred
This was practically the same as calling
a man into court to prove his innocence.
In this case the Commissioner OF Patents
was tie chief complaining witness and the
Judge.
Judge Wilson said that tile brief of the
prosecution was neither frank nor ac-
curata. II had written on it the sir OF
omission He took up the charge that
searches Were carelessly made. He argued
that the Email percentage Of eases in which
errors were found did not justify the
charge Of carelessness. He next moved on
70 the charge that John WedderburIi com
PEELED his searchers TO make 6, 10, and
II searcnes daily. Judge Wilson said that
tins charge was sustained only by the testi-
mOny OF one man, while the evidence was
Overwhelmingly against this charge. This
single witness was Gillis. The brief set
forth that the affidavit OF George Burns
corrobGratea tiillis. judge Wilson read the
affiGavit anu argued that 1t did not cor
roborate Gillis. He argued that the record
did not contain line of testimony thai
! 2 searches could not be properly made iii
day by competent searcher.
Judge Wilson criticised the prosecu-
tiol for giving testimony in its brief In
stead OF on the stand. He criticised tlre
brief for setting forth accusations not
sustained by the evidence. Judge Wilson
defea ded wedderburn frotp the charge
Of employing unskilled labor, and said
that several of the ssarchers employed by
Wedderburn had also been employed by
several of the ''so-called reputable pa
tent attorneys as well. He then pro
| ceeded 10 attack the testimony of
GilIis. He told the story oil how
Gillls obtained information and what he
did with it. Judge Wilson referred TO
the efforts which he said MI. Wedder
burn had pct forth 10 improve The charac-
ter Of the searchers when he became aware
| that the searchers were not as effective as
they might he
! In reply to tine charge that Wedder.
burn sent favorable reports to inventors
when ADVERSE reports should have been
sent, Judge Wilson said.
1T was not the deliberate purpose.
said Judge Wilson. Ito send Favorable
reports to inventors, irrespective OF the
! patentabiIlty OF their inventions. The
eviGange is oyerw heluhngIy against she
| jusIce of this charge. Else. why were
! 65 per cent of the searches reported uIr
favorablv?'
Judge Wilson argued that in those cas- es
~here error had bean discovered there had
! been an absence of willfullless and that the
! prosecution had signally failed to prove
wiIifulness In the errors. Judge Wilson
wanted to know If the case was to be
decided on the testimony OF one witness.
and that witness Gillls, or whether it was
TO be decided on al the evidence
Judge Wilson discussed the Wedder-
burn literamre He thought thatthe prose
cutiol in order to make out case against
/ the accused, has placed a construction
ON some of this literature which the
I Ian guage did not warrant. He main
tanned that many of the valuable patents
were invented by men Of no especial skill
/ IN met hanics, and that many small in
veltions had been productive of much good.
lie wanted TO know how a charge of gross
misconduct could be brought against q
man who simply encouraged men to make
inventions aad then made application for
patents.
He believed that every man who in
vented thing which lightened the cares of
| life was 2 public benefactor. II man in
vented a collar button which would not
break the finger-nail on Sunday morning
and cause man to brea one of the Ten
Commandments, that man is OF value to
TO the community.
In reply to the charge that tn e respondent
solicited business under the name of John
| wedderhurn & Co. and prosecuted patent
| claims under the name Of John " edderburn,
Mr. Wilson contended that was the right
of corporation to have an individual
represent It.
Judge Wilson dwelt upon the charge
that Wedderburn did not keep his clients
fully informed as to the progress of their
respective cases. He maintained that it
was not the duty OF the attorney to do
this. he did not do it himself, and he
thought that very few of his fellow at
torneys d!d. The attorney was paid 10
manage the case.
/ After the noon recess, Judge Wilson
returned to his attack on the brief pre-
| sented by the prosecution. He stated that
taking the applications filed during the
| last eighteen years, an average of Ga
per cent had been allowed. OF the appli.
cations filed by John wedderburn, 81 per
cent lad already been allowed, and many
cases are still pending
de called attention TO the uncertainty
| surrounding many devices, as to their
patertability. Judge Wilson said that tile
| Patent office examiners sometimes change
! their minds. They might be pretty smart
| people, bat there were others. The Com
mission OF Patents could not make
Charge against man which struck down
the business and the reputation of that
! man and then sustain that charge by
| theories, speculation and fancies.
A man conducting a big business, the
| details Of which ne CO uld not personally at
tend to- had to rely to a certain extent
| upon his employees. Mistakes would happen
| ia the best regulated establishments. II
was not due TO dishonesty on the partof the
| employer. A rule Of the Patent Office
prescribed plan for correcting certain
mistakes. Judge Wilson held that in two
| years during which Wedderbarn had filed
nearly 1000 applications, six or eight
cases had been found Ill which error had
been made. He did not mean that these er-
rors We're right or that they should be, but
what he did mean TO say was that they
We're not culpable.
In discussing the summary of the evi-
dence with which the brief concludes
Judge Wilson denied emphaticaily that the
respondents had made the admissions ae.
credited tc them.
Judge Wilson argued al length that tn
fact that John Wedderburn did not TAX
the stand should not be taken against him.
1t WAS the duty Of the prosecution to prove
up to the charges that were brought In
ferences adverse to an accused man might
be INDUCED because of something which
that man had done, but TO draw an infer.
ence adverse TO him because he said nothing