Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-08-07

when but one was used. wedderburn & Co.
had instructed their draughtsmen to Illus:
trate inventions sufficiently large to satisfy
the patent ONCE. But m the case before
him he said he thought the second draw
| ing was not necessary.
Mr.. Ford Of counsel for the respondent
explained that It had been discovered by
Mr.. Rex Smith CT Wedderburn & Co. that
an unnecessary drawing was made in a
case. which he thought was the one under
consideration, ard an order was issued TO
prevent Its repetition.
Sensational Statement.
An hours recess was taken, and at
o'clock the investigation was resumed. Mr..
Bond continued to testify regarding cases
| that had been placed among the exhibits
by the government.
An incident which approached the sensa-
tional was brought out when Mr.. Bond, re-
ferrin8 to cases in Mr.. .Witherspoon's d.
vision. stated that it had proven almost
| impossible to get any favorable action on
since the date of the commissioners order
calling for information on which the pres
ent investigation is being carried on.
Inc assistant commissioner remarked that
II MI Bond had any case that would be
patentable. which had been rejected by the
division referred to. he should like to see
II.
In the case of H. F. Hawkins 1t was
shown that an opinion that the clients in
vention was worth 5000 on direct sale was
given before the application was filed, that
| a silver medal was awarded the inventor
and that he was advised to take out for
eign patents at least In Great Britain and
Canada. The application was finally re-
jected.
Some More Letters Read.
After The Stars report was closed yes
terday afternoon of the proceedings In the
case of Wedderburn & Co, under investi-
cation before the assistant commissioner
of patents. it was shown that Miss Anna
Peck had withdrawn her power of attor-
ney from Wedderburn & Co. and given 1t
to Edison Bros. Mr.. Bond stated that be-
tween the rejection of the application for
patent for Miss Peck and the filing of an
amendment there was an interval of seven
weeks, and Miss Peck complained of the
delay. Correspondence between Wedder-
| burn Il Co. and Miss Peck was read.
MI Greeley produced a letter-head of
Wedderburn & Co., and read: Number Of
patents procured last week. SO; number
sold. 146.'' He asked Mr. Bond what he
| thought of that statement. Witness re-
piled he certainly would not think IL meant
to refer to the business of wedderburn &
Co.
Mr.. Greeley-"Is not that word procured
rather unusual? Would not the word
granted have been more to the purpose If
it was intended 10 show the work of the
patent Officer
Mr.: Bond thought that no construction
could be placed on it to mean that 1t was
the work of Wedderburn & Co.
Mr.. Greeley handed Mr.. Bond a letter by
Wedderburn & Co.. offering to sell pat
ent, saying their fee was contingent, but
that w would be required for advertise
ment. and also suggesting that foreign pat
ents be taken out
Mr.. Greeley-"What was the condition of
| that case when that letter was written?"
Mr.. Bond-'Tne application had been re-
jected.
Mr.. Greeley asked the witness whether
he would advise a client to take out a for
efSn patent when his application for the
patent had been rejected in this country.
MIR. Bond-'1 never had case of that
kind and consequently cannot say"
Judge Wilson-'Suppose you were merely
instructed to take out foreign patent
and opinion was not asked?'
Mr.. Bond-'I would probably prepare the
case.
Anna s. Hartman's Letter.
Mr.. Greeley had correspondence of Anna
S. Hartman in the above case read and
asked the witness what he would judge OF
the education of the writer.
Judge Wison-"And her financial stand
ing. you might add
Mr.. Bond remained quiet moment, and
Judge Wilson said he knew of people worth
a million who could not write letter.
The letter of Miss Hartman said she
trusted the attorneys and wanted to take
out foreign patents if they thought best.
Mr.. Greeley" If you think best-is that
not asking the advice of the att orneys? And
yet Wedderburn & Co. wrote that letter
even in view Of the fact that the applica-
ton for patent for the same device had
been rejected by the United States patent
office?'
Judge Wilson objected to the manner in
which the assistant secretary put his ques-
ton, and had the reply of Wadderburn L.
Co. to Miss Hartman's letter read to show
that 1t gave no advice but merely stated
the price of foreign patents.
In the case of Faulkner the assistant
commissioner asked Mr.. Bond to read a
letter that had been sent to the client ad-
Vising him that his device should be worth
5000, or that f he chose to handle it on the
royalty plan it ought to yield him a good
income for some Years. The device in ques-
lion was tissue paper device TO be placed
in envelopes to show if they had been
tempered with.
Judge Wilson asked questions to show
that efforts had long been made to get
some successful device to detect the lam
perng with letters, and that such a sue
ceSSful device would be valuable.
The case of Dressed and Matern for a
stovepipe device was referred to.
Judge Wilson-'That is device to pre-
vent men from swearing when they put up
stovepipes. 1 believe. 1t seems to me such
device wouG be very valuable Perhaps
some of you have not had to put up stove
pipe" he remarked. amid some laughter.
Mr.. Small-"You have tried it, judge?"
Judge WilSon-"I have put up many a
stovepipe, but not your kind.
Mr. Bond did not think the device was
patentable in the way it was presented in
the application.
AT 4:15 an adjournment was taken until