The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1898-04-28
FOUNTAIN PEN MATTERS.
Some Of the Grist Ground in Recent Suits.


the American News Company, and
from the subsequent decision, where.
in the motion of the defendant COM
pany to be allowed to give bond and
continue the sale of the "Ever Ready"
fountain pen as before, pending the
defendants appeal, was denied. Both
were reported in this paper at the
time of their occurrence. In Tile
.StahonerS report of the first decision
in this case it SAID:
"When the damages have been
ascertained and collected that will
mark the end of this famous suit, but
this does not necessarily mean that
that will be the end of all fountain pen
litigation. The state of the trade,
already in an unsatisfactory and un-
settled condition because of the
pendency of the suit just decided and
other suits of similar nature in other
quarters, is not to be allowed to re-
main calm and undisturbed for a very
great length of time, if all reports are
to be believed. 1t is said that Mr..
Writ, flushed with another success,
will renew his demand for settlement
with even greater peremptoriness than
was the case before he locked horns
with the American News Company.
1t is rumored that letters of notifca-
ton were sent out to some of the big
gest buyers in the fountain pen line
before the ink was hardly dry upon the
pen with which the judge put his
signature to the decree calling upon
them to step up to the captains office
and settle. These threats were taken
as idle when made before, but the
result was that one of the strongest
companies of all those against whom
they were made was chosen as an
example and victim. They now know
what it means, and it is a iightful in
ference to draw that, strengthened by
another legal decision, Mr.. Writ will
be even more strenuous in insisting
upon and maintaining the rights for
which he has fought and Won"
Recent happenings have borne out
these statements, and from all that
can be learned there is likely to be
forthcoming in due time more examples
of corroboratlve evidence of a like
character to those recorded below, or
else ali signs and rumors are un-
usually misleading, unreliable and un-
decipherable except to those who are
on the inside.
The result of each suit which has
SO far been brought and settled or
judicially decided has been that some
of the fountain pen manufacturers
have been corralled, as it were, and
required TO take out a license from MIR.
Writ. The result of the suit against
the American News Company has not
been an exception to the rule, and two
New York fountain pen manufacturers
are recorded as having entered into
agreements with Mr.. Writ for the
peaceful continuation in the manu-
facture of their respective pens. They
are David w. Beaumel, who makes
the "Rival," and w. G. Frazer and
H. w. Geyer, who, under the firm
style of William G. Frazer & Co, or,
as they sometimes advertise, the Lin
coin Fountain Pen Company, make
the "Lincoln" fountain pen. Both
parties last week signed agreements
with Mr.. Writ in which they acknowl-
edge as right all the claims of the
Stone patent, agree to take out IL
censes for manufacture from Mr.. Writ,
stamp their pens as r'ade under his
patents, to pay royalty therefor
thereafter, at so much per pen, ac-
cording to the retail price thereof, to
pay immediate and substantial dam
ages in gross sum covering the pens
they have already sold, and holding
themselves liable TO the payment of a
yet greater sum as penalty in case
they shall fail to comply with the terms
of their agreements.
In this connection it is interesting
to note the number of cases which
have been brought by or against Mr..
Writ and the disposal .of each. The
time they cover is almost twelve years,
beginning January FL, 1887, when an
injunction was granted In the case of
Paul E. Writ v. Francis c. Brown.
The others are as follows, the dates
being the dates ofinjunction or settle
ments: February 4, 1888, Writ v. D.
w. Lapham and S. H. Bogert, decree
and injunction; December ID, 1888,
Writ v. d. w. Lapham and S. H.
Bogert, decree and injunction May
I2, 1890, George H. Sackett v. Paul
E. Writ ct al, bill dismissed October
10, 1890, Writ v. William S. Hicks
ct al, injunction granted, with an ac-
counting and costs; May II, 1895,
| Writ Y. Mabie. Todd & Rard. suit