The times., 1897-09-01

"
Commissioner of Patents should not dis
bar him or the firm was begun at the
Patent office yesterday.
The opening argument was made By
Attorney Ford Toward the close of his
speech he made the point that the Com
missioner of Patents could not disbar the
firm OF John sWedderburn & Co. for the
firm being u corporation it could not
practice law, and as it had never been
admitted before the Patent Office, the
Commissioner OF Patents could not, there
fore, disbar It.. The corporation was rep
resented before the Patent Office by
John wedderburn, who held power of at
torney from clients who sought to trans
act business with the Patent Office. If
the Commissioner OF Patents saw fit he
coulG disbar John Wedderburn, but he
could not disbar John Wedderburn & Co.
Attorney Ford adduced authorities To
sustain this point
Mr. Ford referred to the methods en-
ployed by the prosecution, stating that
F. a Lehman had sent out circular ask
ing all persons who had grievance
against the firm of John Wedderburn &
Co. to send those complaints To Washington,
and that William Small had advertised
for evidence against the accused.
This" he said, would have been open
TO criticism had It been done by John
wedderburn s. Co., but as it was done by
the prosecution 1T has escaped criticism"
The patent lawyers of Washington, Mr.
Ford said had banded themselves together
10 force John Wedder burn out OF the busI
ness No other firm had submitted its
business 10 such searching investigation
as had John Wedderburu 4 Co. 1t was
natural that some errors should be dis
covered, but the firm OF John
Wedderburn would challenge COM
parison with any other patent firm
In Washington. He maintained that the
Commissioner could not disbar a patent
agent, except for gross misconduct, and he
further maintained that one Of the essen
tials 10 gross misconduct was wiIlfulness,
and that negligence in no way should be
taken as gross misconduct. The Commits
sioner could not d1sbar for Carelessness or
negligence, but the misconduct must be
wllful This had not been proved by the
evidence The misconduct must also be
fraudulent and corrupt.
You ne ed not discuss that, as / am
aware that is the law said the Commis
sioner.
The mistakes were made, not by John
WedderburH, but by his employees.
Commissioner Butter worth here said:
Suppose 1 establish surgical institute
and that 1 advertise that I have skllful
surgeons and unbounded facilities, have
then right TO employ butchers"
Mr.. Ford retorted that John Wedderburn
did not employ butchers, and IL was not
charged that he did.
Attorney Ford replied to Attorney Doc
little. who Monday said that Wedderburn
was ignorant and incompetent, by the
statement that not one bit of evidence had
been introduced to show his Incompetence
But" said Mr.. Ford, admitting that
he was ignorant of the law, you, as Core
| missioner of Patents, have no right TO
disbar him You may not like his methods
but YOU have tight TO disbar him only when
willful fraud has been proved"
In the matter OF prize giving, Attorney
| Ford said that prizes were the order OF
the day Magazines and newspapers gave
| them and many other business enterprises.
A patent itself was in the nature OF u
| prize. He defended the advertisement OF
| John wedderburn, and said that some Of
| the arguments against these advertise
ments were absurd and seemed based On
| Che assumption that everything John
| Wedderburn did was wrong.
| In the matter OF the patent cases IN
| which John Wedderburn accepted fees
! after the application for patent had been
| rejected by the Patent Office Mr.. Ford
said out OF 1000 cases only six had
| been shown Co have been so reJe ected.
Vie argued that these cases were the
!esuIt Of error and not of design Mr..
| Ford read the letter which was sent out
| by the National Recorder, 70 clients OF
| WeGderburn, Offering to print picture
| and biography Of inventors, including fifty
| copies of the paper and two annual sub
scriptions, for SIS.
| Mr.. Ford contended that those who sent
| the money got what they bargained for.
He pointed out that If an appraiser for
| Wedderburn did place valuation upon
| patents submitted, this did not constitute
| fraud, even though the valuation be wrong
| Fraud Consisted of intent to defraud car
| riesI into execution.
Mfr. Ford then discussed the evidence of
Witness ellis, who, Mr.. Ford said, was
| discharged enploye, and who had threa 6
ened t. get even" with Wedderburn.
The defense sought to show that Giili
wasrenoved from the control of the search
department. of the Wedderburn Company
Attorney Ford dwelt on the fact that
tie Nedder burn searchers reported So pc
cent OF the cases unpatentable.
IF the company intended fraud, VIII,
did Wedderburn employ seventeen of th
most skillful specifications writers in Wash
| Ington?' asked Mr.. Ford. He insisted
that one case which was reported DIS ia
vorable and in which no search had beel
made. was due to the personal neglec
Of the searcher, and that WedderburI
honestly believed that the search had beer
made
/ In An effort to discredit Witness Gillis
Judge Wilson, of counsel Cor defense, hand
ed to Attorney Ford Circular from Gi!li
To clients of Wedde rburn informing then
Of the charges against him. and asking that
their patent business, pending in the hands
of said Wedderburn, be transferred.
Mr.. Ford declared, in answer To tn
charge that Wedderburn induced inventor
TO appeal their cases wh ,ntheir application
had been at first rejected, that he has
Won % per cent of his gases on appeal
a larger percentage i'll the courts.
Replying 10 the charge that Wedderbur
had not kept his clienss fully advise,
as to the progress of d case, it was sub
mitted that no lawyer made it practic'
to tel his client every step he intentle,
to take Counsel for defense told Com
missioner ButterwoFth that he had no righ
to say tuw anotiisr mans business snoult
be conducted, :f man S methods wer
within the law re criticised the prose