The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1916-10-05

made by its experts on its invention
in any part of the world. etc, etc
one of The considerations to tn
ore Concentration Syndicate unde
this agreement was contained II
clause I. of which the following is al
extract: From and after date hereof
Messrs. Hay, Webster and Ballot "an(
their assigns shall from time I,
time, after making or becoming en-,
titled to any Improvement in or add.
tiOn to the said invention or process
or any discovery useful for separating
metallic from the rocky constituents
OF ores by the use of oil forthwith
give notice thereof in writing to" the
Gilmore Syndicate, land shall upon de-
lmand communicate and explain
such Improvement, addition, OF
discovery, and the" Gilmore Syndicate
shall be>entitled to every such i'm
Iprovement, addition, or discovery whe
Their the same shall be patented OF
not"
/ Under this agreement Hay, Webster
and Ballot exercised their rights of
option during a period of IL months.
Ballot or his consulting metalurgists,
Sulman & Picard attended at the
works on almost every working day
during that period. AS they We're
treated with the greatest frankness
they became fully acquainted with
every detail of the process, plant and
working.
The option was not exercised.
Ballots name was subsequently join
ed with that OF Sulman & Picard on
the patent of 1905 and he and Web
ster, with some friends, formed a syn
dictate, the original of the present
Minerals Separation Limited, which
acquired the Cattermole, Fremont, and
Sulman, Picard and Ballot patents.
Legal action was started by the ore
Concentration company Owners of the
Elmore patents) in 1905 to enforce
the provisions of clause Z of the agree
ment quoted above The Ore Con-
centratiOn company lost IN the first
court; they appealed asking for a new
trial which was granted. After hear
ing of the new trial had proceeded for
several days the judge, as | under
stand it, raised the question as to what
the position would be if Ballot had
made or become entitled to the i'm
in or additions to the said
not on his own behalf but
on behalf of the syndicate of which
he was a member.
In view of the fact that the judge
was Mr.. Justice (noW Lord) Parker
the ''law" thus limited at was
very good; but the common sense
view Of the matter may be left to the
judgment of common sense people.
At any rate, on this hint the parties
to the suit consulted and the action
was settled by consent and by way
Of compromise and settlement of all
claims arising in respect of agreement
of October 8. 1901 both past and
future, all proceedings stayed, each
party paying his own costs"
There was not in this suit any ques-
ton of validity of Elmore patents, and
because of that fact the
have not received the at
tention they deserve. The case Is
quoted simply to draw attention to
some interesting evidence given and
as showing how extremely difficult it
IL for an inventor to protect himself
The clause was drawn by one Of the
hest legal firms in this country, and |
believe the real meaning and intention
of it is perfectly clear to the ordinary
bl siness man. Yet it took five judges.
'nree courts, twelve learned counsel
and four firms of solicitors period Of
tv years to bring about the settle
ment above stated
What splendid justification for
Moiere's lines:
There, take" says justice, take we
each a she'll;
We thrive at the law courts on fools
like you.
Twas a fat oyster! live in peace
adieu"
Another protracted lawsuit was
commenced by the Ore Concentration
in Germany in the year 1906.
IT took the form of an opposition to
the grant of a German patent APP
Piled for by Messrs. Sulman, Picard
ard Ballot. The application was for
patent in substance the same as the
main Minerals Separation patent in
England.
The fight lasted for about three
years: after hearing evidence and see
ing experiments made, the German
patent office decided in July, 1909, that
the application Of Minerals Separation
disclosed no new feature to differen-
tiate it from Elmores earlier patent
and consequently refused the grant of
a patent to Minerals Separation.
I believe this suit is little known
and attention is called to it in view of
the importance of the decision ar
rived at by the German patent office
and because of the completeness Of
the historical record set out in the
documents.
The following is translation of the
claim in Elmore's German patent: