The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1901-07-11
IS IT CONTEMPT
Novel Question Before Vice
Chancellor Stevenson
Today.
PARTNERS AT WAR
Fight Over a Patent for
Film for Lamp
Mantles.

| An affidavit prepared and sworn to in
| New York was thrown out of the Court
! of Chancery this morning with an em-
| phasis that caused it's sponsors to blink
| Warren Dixon, of this city, moved before
| Vice Chancellor Stevenson for an order
adjudging Orlando NJ Thowless in con-
! tempt for violating a restraining order of
| the court. He said that Mr.. Thowless was
1 the inventor of a film of which NANTES
| used in Wellsbach lamps are made, and
| entered into a partnership with Horace
NJ. Williams, the complainant, to exploit
| his patent. Thowlers sold an option on
his patent to George Westinghouse of
| Pittsburg Westinghouse threw up the,
! option. Soon afterward film was placed
on the market which Thowleas claimed
was an infringement of his patent, and
he began suit in the United States Court
to himself.
He then, Mr.. Dixon claimed, entered in
to contract with the Wellsbach Company
which agreed to pay the expenses of the
patent suit in the United States Court, if
the company's counsel was of the opinion
he had a ood case and in case he won
the suit in the United States Court, the
company would pay him $4,000 for his
patent.
Williams and Thowless disagreed ana
the former began a suit in the Court OF
Chancery to have an accounting and the
partnership established. He secured an
order restraining Thowless from receiving
or d1sposing Of any of the debts, money
or property of the alleged partnership.
Mr.. Dixon read an affidavit made by AL
bert Stetson in which it was set forth
that Thowless told the affiant that he
had received from the Wellsbach Com
pany, through man named Mason,
s119250. This Mr.. Dixon claimed was
partnership money and included in the
restraining order. In accepting it Thow-
less had violated that order and was
guilty of contempt of court.
Cortlandt Parker, Jr., of Newark coun-
sci for Thowless, objected to the affidavit.
He said it had no date and there was
nothing about it to show where it was
taken. 1t was evidently taken before
New York Notary Public and presumably
sworn to in New Jersey and yet its jurat
did not meet the requiremnts of the New
Jersey statute. Mr.. Dixon admitted that
was also and the Court said he would
have to throw out the affidavit which was
prepared by a New York Lawyer.
MIR. Dixon then asked for an adjourn
menr so that he could prepare papers and
make new application Mr.. Parker said
he would waive his objections to the af-
fidavit as he was anxious to have the
matter disposed of at once. He then read
affidavits by Thowless and others. ThoW-
less said that the man Stetson, who made
the affidavit against him was his counsel
in the patent suits but was superseded by
Mason's counsel when the new agree
ment was made.
The money which Thowless had collect
ed from Mason was given to Stetson for
his fees and expenses in the patent suit
Stetson was angry at being superseded in
the patent cases and ever since has been
hostile to Thowess. Thowless denied that
Mason represented the Wellsbach Com
pany or that the money which he had paid
him was in any way partnership assets,
Mr.. Dixon argued in his uslal characteris-
tic manner for the commitment of Thow-
less.