Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1900-01-06
Arguments in the Patent Case
in U. S. Court Concluded
Yesterday.
SUIT OF MUCH IMPORTANCE
THE PRESIDING JUDGE SPOKEN
OF FAvORABLY BY ATTORNEYS
ON BOTH SIDES IN THE PEA
SMELLING CASE-BRIEF IN
THREE WEEKS.
THREE WEEKS.

Arguments in the infringement of
patent case of the Chisholm-Scott Com
pany, of Suspension Bridge, n. Y.
VS.. Zachariah Johnson Of Houston, Della
ware were concluded before Judge
Bradford in United States court, yes
terday afternoon.
The arguments were en- a suit en-
tered by the plaintiff VS.. the defend
ent for the infringement on the patent
right of pea hulling machinejnvent-
ed by said plaintiff Chisholm-Scott &
Co., who we're represented by AttOr-
neys' Gustav Bissing of Washington,
ID. c., and Henry e. Seymore Of Bos-
ton. Johnson was represented by ex-
Judge Taylor Of Fort Wayne, Ind.
At yesterday afternoons session of
court Mr. Bissing resumed his argu-
ment OF the morning and made a brill
liant address summing up the case.
He closed with a few well chosen
words thanking the court for its kind
and courteous attention. Mr.. Bisslng
was followed by Judge Taylor, for the
defendant who spoke ably and also
thanked Judge Bradford for the in
terest displayed in the case.
THE COURT PRAISED.
In speaking to an Evening Journal
reporter last evening regarding Judge
BTadford's s attitude during the argu-
ments, Mr. Bissing said: You can
comb out the United States Court
throughout this country with a fine
tooth comb and you will never find a
more painstaking, conscientious and
attentive judge than Judge Bradford
/ was surprised. as every question he
asked of the attorneys was for his en-
| llightenment, and IL was a pleasure "a
answer them. He is one out of many.
Ex-Judge Taylor, representing the
defendant, johnson, said: Il have ar.
gued many patent cases before, but
never have I seen a judge &C any cour
who so clearly understood patent cases
Judge Bradford is a man Of keen com
lprehension. and attorneys on both side!
will be satisfied with his decision, al
he has endeavored to thoroughly un
derstand every point in the case.
AN IMPORTANT CASE.
i The case in which the argument
were Just concluded is a notable one
land is distinctive from any other pat
ent cases before tried, inasmuch as
is the first time that a suit for in
i lfringement Of patent has been brough
? -lagainst the user Of a machine and no
u the maker. The case is one which in
wolves eight parties or companies, VIII
: are at present using the pea-shellin
, machine. and Who are located not onl
> in Delaware, where there are two con
Germs, but particularly Western Ne'
York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey an
Wisconsin. The pending cOntrovers
also involves a sum of S2,5OO,0OO j
royalties, which the plaintiff tirI
2 would receive in the ten years befor
t its patent right expires. The presen
suit was entered two years ago befor
Judge Bradford. but arguments wer
never heard before. The decision wi
5 be an important one. and will involy
many millions Of dollars.
WRONG PARTIES SUED.
: The contention of the defense is this
the suit has been entered against II
wrong parties, and, whereas, the use
has been proceeded against, the props
, course to pursue would have been
= enter suit against the manufacturer,
I In. Empson, Of Longmont, Colorad
; The defense also contends that II
e patent papers taken out we're defe
q tive.
/, Judge Bradford granted Mr. Tayl'
!, three weeks to file the brief TO his arg
I ment. and some time after that a d
!, cision will be given. II is probah
I that no matter in which way Il
h court decides an appeal 10 the Supren
Court will be taken.
The plaintiff company is compos
Of ]. A. Chisholm, of Rochester; {.
Chisholm. Of Suspension Bridge, n.
Il and r. r. Scott, Of Baltimore.