Evening journal., 1918-02-07
SULPHUR COMPANIES
IN FEDERAL SUIT

One OF the most important cases
heard In the United states District
Court here for some time. was opened
today. before Judge Edward O. Brad
ford, In which the Union sulphur
Company. Of New Jersey, Is plaintiff,
and the Freeport Texas Company, a
Delaware corporation. and the Freeport
sulphur Company, Of Texas. defendants.
The sum Of 100000 Is involved
The plaintiffs are seeking an iniunc-
tion TO restrain the defendants from
alleged infringement on letters patent
owned by the plaintiffs.
The case Is interesting in MANY
respects. including the fact that the
late Herman Frasch, who was a pio
neer in sulphur mining In this coun-
try. figures In the suit Prior 30 his
experiments which resulted in the
mining Of sulphur in this country. the
most Of the sulphur usei 10 the
United states was imported from Sicily.
The plaintiffs bill Of complaint sets
forth that Herman Frasch was issued
a patent for the Invention OF certain
Improvements in mining sulhpu-.
which patent has been used by the
plaintiffs IN connection with Their
business; that the Freepovt Texas
Company was organized for the de-
velopment Of certain sulphur bearins
lands in Texas and caused 70 be or
ganized subsidiary companies in Texas,
including the Freeport sulphur Com
nsny; that the sulphur deposits In the
Texas lands in question are similar IN
character 20 the sulphur deposits 10
lands operated by the pdaintils at
sulphur, La, being far below the sur
face, and that the only way 20 make
them successful is by processes and
apparatus owned by the plaintiffs Il,
mining sulphur at sulphur, that the
defendants knew Of the plaintiffs sue
cessful operations and OF the exclusive
rights by virtue Of certain patents
bun conspired and contrived together
90 use the inventions embodied In the
said letters patent In mining the afore-
said deposits Of sulphur in Texas, and
that the defendants have infrlnged on
their letters patent have manufactur-
cd and used the apparatus and pro-
cesses embodied in the Inventions.
In their answer. the defendants
deny that on May q, 1897, or on any
other date. Frssch. within the mean
ing Of the statutes, was the inventor
OF inventions or improvements cover
ed by the patents In the suit.
Among the exhibits Of the plaintiffs
in the testimony Of the late inventor
which set forth that sulphur deposits
were discovered in Louisiana In 1860
and OF the failure Of companies or
ganized following that time to mine
il: Of his experiments which began ir
1891 and OF the many difficulties ana
setbacks which attended his expert
ments until sulphur was successfully
mined.
In 1895 the entire output OF sulphur
I In the United states was $500 tons
valued at the mines at about $1,000.
and in the same year there was I'M
ported into the United states i2iO0O
tons. The output from the mines In
this country is given from that time
on and the exhibits show that from
1895 70 1912 the plaintiffs have taken
ort 1858 81 tons.
The plaintiffs are represented Dy
Fish. RICHARDSON and Neave ana
Henry A. Wise, Of New York, while
the defendants are represented by
sheffield and Belts. Livingston Giuord
ard Delaney Nicoll, OF New YORK, ana
Thomas F. Bayard, OF this city.
There are about 3,O00 pages In the
printed record OF The case, includns
80 or 100 drawings and photographs