Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1905-01-12
important Case Decided.

at Parkersburg last week, when ar
gumenta were submitted for an injunc-
ton to restrain the Washington Build
ing Lime Co., through its president,
Daniel Baker, from further use of
what is known as the Eldred process
for burning lime, and to cause the
company to account to the court for
the lime bsrned by tLis process at the
kilns at Bakerton and Engles, W.
Va, on which it was sought to enforce
the payment of alleged royalties to
the amount Of many thousands OF dol
lars. Judge jackson decided IN favor
Of the defendants, denying the inJunc-
ton.
This suit has attracted the atten-
ton of the owners of lime kllns in
every section of the United States aud
Canada, by reason of the fact that the
validity of the patent OF the Eldred
process Of burning lime, which is used
by almost every big kiln owner IN
these countries, is at stake The suit
was instituted by a New York corpo-
ration, hea ed by Byron L EIdred,
of Brookline, Mass, the present owner
Of the Eldred process, and involved
in the question OF the validity Of the
patent is the probable l'ss of many
millions of dollars in future royalties
to the Eldr.d company if Judge Jack
son 8 decision is affirmed by the Su-
preme Court of the United States,
where the case will finally be deter
mined.
AS developed in the arguments,
Byron Z. Eldred, who claims to have
been the discoverer Of the process
bearing his name, secured a patent IN
1902, and sold to the Washington
Building Lime Co., one Of the largest
concerns of the kind in this sectlon
of the country, the right to use the
process upon the payment of royalty
of fourth of a cent per bushel on
all lime burned. Several months ago
Daniel Baker notified the Eldred COM
pany that he would terminate the con.
tract between them, but has snce
been using the process for which ne
had formerly paid many thousands OF
dollars each year. The plaintiffs al
legged that he is infringing upon their
patent, and demand the payment OF
a sum aggregatipg three times the
amount of that originally agreed upon,
under the statute covering this phase
of the case.
The plea of the defense was that
the Washington Building Lime Co. is
not using a process upon which there
ia a patent in existence, claiming that
the so.called Eldred process is one
formerly known as the Dreuker pro-
cess, patented in 1887, upon which
the patent has expired. and which is
now public property. 1t was claimed
by the defense that Joseph and John
Dreuker, of Chicago. originated what
is now known as the Eldred process,
and subsequently disposed Of the pat
ent to Byron T. Eldred, who in the
meantime had hit upon the same
method of burning lime, and who, by |
reason Of his superior scientific educs-
ton and understanding Of chemistry,
was enabled to overcome some minor
difficulties and bring it to state OF
perfection.
The Dreuker process contemplated
the use of coal in burning lime, and
sought to diffuss the intense local heat
80 engendersd equally to all parts Of
the kiln by means of drawing into the
shaft again those gases which would |
deaden the local heat. Itwss alleged
by the defense that the Eldred process
is exactly the same as the Dreufer
process in principle, and that the only
difference is that the latter admits
into the shaft the proper proportion
Of gas and fresh air, making a more
perfect FIRE.
The decision ofJudge Jackson is re-
garded as long step toward throw.
ing open to the kilnI Of the United
States and Canada the most practical
and valuable process for burning lime
now known. 1t is predicted that
the case will eventually find its way
to the supreme court Of the United
State, for adjudication, the priDcely |
fortune involved making the plain
tifs fight to the end.