The times., 1897-09-03

A the Conclusion Of the argument Com
missioner BuIterworth spoke of the iln-
portauce OF the case, not only TO the
He would endeavor to treat it with just re-
gard for its importance, and he would
write his opinion and give his reasons for
his Conclusions. He thanked counsel on
both sides FOR the thoroughness with
which they had presented the case, and
closed with these words Adjourned sine
die''
The opening argument yesterday was
made by Attorney F. W. Winter, of coun-
sci for the prosecution.
Mt. Winter, IL defining the jurisdiction
OF Commissioner Buiterworth over John
Wedaerburr, maintained that the firm
OF John Weddcrburn * Company have
practiced before the Patent Office. He
called up two applications for patents,
mace toy John wedderburn & Co." In
reply 10 Attorney Ford's point that a cor
poration could not practice law, ,'be that
az it may" he said, 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 patent agent secured his prac.
tice.
Attorney Winter charged that improper
| searches were made. On this point he said:
'tThat these improper searches Were due
10 gross negligence or deliberate Intention
ON the part or the respondent corporation
is shown toy the fact, admitted by Bond,
That some of these scarchers were incom
petent. IBthe early part Of s97, sea archers
were expected 10 make nine searches
day, and is shown by the fact that in the
early part of 1897 during the time that
tie witness Bond was in charge Of the
search department, an average of seven
and one-haIf searches a day is shown by
the office records OF the respondents TO
have been made.
This number of searches is a larger
number than can properly be made by
seacchers who are experts. The employ
ment TO incompetent seaTchers and the
requirements that such searchers should
make on au average from seven and one
talf TO twelve searches day is clear and
convincing proof that the respondent
corporation did not intend or expect that
such searches shonld be proper and com
plete''
He charged that this constituted a fraud
upon clients
After the noon recess Attorney Fisher, Of
the Patent Office, argued for the prosecu
/ tion. He said that he was fully in
sympathy with the effort being made To
prevent WedderbuTn from practicing be
| fore tine Patent Office. He first swered
the suggcsuion that he, Ike other counsel
for the prosecution, was inspired by pro-
fcssional Jealousy. He was actuated only
by desire TO protect the public and the
good name of the patent system. He ac-
cused the d2fense of having dwelt on miner
errors made by the prosecution, skipped
over tie strong points made against the
| accused and with having juggled with
figures.
He drew a comparison between Johu
| Wedderbum and a green goods swindIer.
BE said the victim Of the green goods man
was criminal at heart, while the victim
of wedderburn wanted to get rich but also
wanted To give tn. public something which
it wanted
He reviewed all the literature sent out
| by Wedderburn, and argued that it was
misleading and therefore fraudulent. He
showed that the number of searches said
10 have been made during two years by
| John Wedderburn & Co. could not have
been properly made by the number of
searchers employed by that company. He
said that If there were other patent at
torneys whose business methods were no
letter than the methods employed by
John Wedderburn, those attorneys ought
also 70 be dfsbarred. He said that the
prosecution had selected seventy cases of
search. The defense Admitted that twenty
five showed that they were improperly
made, and the prosecution claimed that
siIty-five were improperly made But, if
in single case q favorable report had
beer sent out 70 client where no search
had been made, or where a search had
been Improperly made, or where the ap-
plicatton had been rejected, that single
case was enough TO war; ant the disbar
ment Of John Wedderburn.
He said when the present investiga ton
was talked about, wedderburn had, with
a great flourish OF truInpets, announced
that he courted investigation. But when
the investigation had been begun
John wedderburn, or anybody who could
speak authoritauvely for the corporation
Of John wedderhurn. had failed 10 show
up before the investigators.
He had no faith in the alleged reforma-
ton of John Wedderburn. True, his
reformation began before the investigation,
but coming events cast their shadows
before. and John Wedderburn, reading
the handwriting on the wall, began to
reform IN a measure his methods.
Mr.. Fisher quoted from the evidence tt
show that many people We're misled and
defrauded by John Wedderburn.
x-Commissiouer Marble made the next
argument for the prosecution. He called
attention To the importance of the case
II waslmportantnotonlyt yto herespondents
but to every body, and particularly to every
inventor.
Ee told of the receipt at the Patent
office of daily complaints against Johr
Wedderburn, and it is, he said, the no
torious fact that John Wedderburn wa.
causing misery among poor people. Ther,
was no decision OF the Commissioner ot
1