Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-08-31
Only twenty-five Cases Out Of
Over Three thousand.
DISCUSSING THE TESTIMONY

! of the commission er.
How Evidence Was Secured.
Mr.. Ford opened his argument by de-
| claring that the manner in which evidence
had been secured against Wedderburn 4
| Co. was unique. that a dragnet had been
set to catch everything that could be Sc
| cured against the firm. F. A. Lehman
| had sent out circular letter asking all
| persons who had any complaint against
| them to send them in; that VIM. Small,
| who had styled himself as counsel for the
reputable attorneys had advertised in
| the leading journals in this country, asking
| all persons who had dealings with Wedder-
| burn d Co. to correspond with him: an
! other attorney who has a weekly letter in
| four or five thousand small papers had
| made similar statement; other attorneys
| had sent out what was known as the Laura
A: Peck letter, and he believed the patent
| office also sent out a circular letter to a
| number of the clients of Wedderburn &
| Co. to get information, and he would say
that in some cases the patent Office had
| sent out the wrong circular by mistake.
II II at had been done by Wedderburn
& Co.,, remarked Mr.. Ford. lit would have
peen the subject for some criticism"
Inc whole country, he said, had been
secured to get evidence.
Patent attorneys in this city" he went
on, are banded together to drive John
Wedderburn & Co. out of business. The
examiners of the patent Office have made
OF this frm and prosecuted their searches
INTO their business with zeal; there is DO
doubt about that. do not think any other
patent attorney has ever had his business
subjected TO such thorough examination as
made by the examiners of the patent offlce
They found mistakes, and it was reasonable
TO suppose they would in examining 3, 7:,3
Applications. The whole number of i'm
proper searches found had dwindled down
10 twenty-five. This was reasonably
small member of mistakes.
Mr. Ford told the commissioner that of
course his decision in this case would he
based on the evidence and not on any in
formation he might nave privately
Mr. Ford then argued to show that the
respondents could not be disbarred because
OF mistakes,but wfllfullness must be shown.
Carelessness or negligence did not consti-
tute gross misconduct. Gross misconduct
must be fraudulent. He said court never
disbars an attorney except for fraudulent
practice.
No Disbarment for Mistakes
Commissioner Butterworth remarked that
he was satisfied that an attorney could rot
be disbarred merely for mistake.
Mr.. Ford argued that the principal was
not responsible for acts of his employees ex-i
oept they be by his command.
Commissioner Butterworth-"Then do L
understand that If a man advertiSes him
self as a surgical institute, and says he
has the best skill for the performance of
surgical operations, and then employs
bl tchers 10 do the work requiring skill he
is not responsible?'
MIR. Ford said it had been shown that
Wedderburn & Co. had employed skilled as
sistants.
Some of the criticisms of Wedderburn &
Co.." Mr.. Ford continued. appear to have
been made on the assumption that every
thing that John Wedderburn did must have
been wrong"
The commissioner commented on the fact
that Mr.. Wedderburn had failed to appear
before him in his own behalf in this case
but Mr.. Ford SAID it was well understood
in law that nothing could be inferred
against defendant If he did not see fit to
appear.
The Award of Prizes
Mr.. Ford spoke at some length on the
practice of Wedderburn & Co. in giving
prizes. He said Wedderburn & Co. adyer-
tised to give prizes and did give them. 1t
had been shown that another attorney had
advertised to give prizes. but didn't give
them. Mr.. Ford went on to say that prizes
were the order of the day. Magazines offer
them TO make their journals popular soap
makers give them to sell their commodity
ana every kind of business resorted tn tho
same method to promote its interest He
said IL mad been shown that in only six ont
OF ll,ooo cases were medals sent to inyen-
Tors In whose cases unfayorabIe renorts
mad been sent. Such small number mieht
readily, he said, be attributed to mistakes
sAioNSht iHcy were an exceedingly
small number
Considerable discussion followed between
the commissioner and MIR. Ford regardjr O,
the character of evidence that should be
considered in the case under investie.fion
the commissioner claiming that tho Strict
rules OF evidence as applied in the courts
old not apply to the case under consid.ra-
ton.
Only Twenty-Five Cases Out of 3.G1a
There were only seventy cases Mr.. Ford
said, to sustain the charges against We'd
derburn Co. OF those cases twenty were
shown to be patentable, fourteen were
doubtful. but there were only twenty-five
which could be considered to sustain the
charges. 1t was apparent to him that
Sucn small number out of a total of z III,
cases showed that they were the result of
mistake, not fer purposes of fraud. If
fraud had been intended there would have
peen more cases like the twenty-five cited in
which applications were filed when the
invention was not ratentable.
Giilfs' Testimony Discussed.
recess was taken, and at 1890 o'clock
MI. FORD resumed his argument. He spoke
OF the testimony of Mr.. ellis, who. he said.
was discharged employee who had said he
would get even" with Mr. Wedderburn.
He spoke of Mr.. Wedderburn's letter de-
posing Mr.. ellis as chief of the search de-
partment and said there could be no doubt
why he was deposed, which was that he
saiQ ne was not patent expert after he
mad been In the place for some time. and
the work was unsatisfactory. He read an
order issued to searchers that anyTone
making favorable report on a case later
reported by the examiner would be dis
charged. These orders, he said. contra
dlcted ellis testimony and showed whv
ne was deposed. The testimony of ellis.
ne said. not only failed to show any fraudlI-
lent intent on the part of the respondents.
out showed that good work was sought by
the attorneys. Mr.. Ford asked why all the
safeguards shown In orders should have
been taken to get competent work, and
why 62 per cent of all the cases examined
by searchers should have been reported Tn
taVora6ly II fraud was intended WHY
would they have not reported them ali
favorably? The twenty-five cases cited he
| said, showed only that mistakes were made
| and nothing more.
Claim of No Jurisdictien.
In the argument over the Wedderburn
! case this afternoon Mr.. Ford claimed that
! the commissioner of patents had no juris-
| diction over John Wedderburn & Co.. and
| could rot disbar them. as they had never
| praetieed before the patent office.
| The business n ha