The New York Herald Newspaper, October 9, 1852, Page 2

THE GREAT INDIA RUBBER CASE. THE DECISION OF JURTICE ERIER IN [RR CASE OF GOODYEAR vs. DAY. Delivered September 28, 1°52, YE CAUSE HAVING BEEN ARGUED AT THE LAST MARCH TERM OF, THR UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT AT TRENTON, BEFORE JUDGES GRIER AND DICKERSON, BY JAMBS T. BRADY AND DANIEL WERSTER, FOR THE PLAINTIFF; ANP REFUS CHOATE AND FRANCIS B. CUTTING, POR THE DRFENDANT. : a The bill in this case sets forth that, since 1843, Charies Goodyear has been, and now is, the own of certain new and useful imaseremenis in the preparati india rubber for manufacturing pur- poses, oy wbick tbe properties of this substance are greatly changed and improved. It rendered is- rensible to heat and cold, wie ce’ ture. Itsclammy and s tae on , and it is made proof against the effects of fat and grease, or expromed oils, while the th, elasticity, and other good qualities of the — substance are retained and improved. at these improvements were secured to com- — by letters patent—the first, dated 24th of | ‘ebruary. 1839, on a discovery of Nathaniel Hay- ward, of Woburn, Mass., assigned by him to Good- year. This patent was for the application of sul- phar in the curing of india rubber. After this, the complainant, Goodyear, in 1840, commenced, and continued for several years, his experiments on India rubber, in order to discover some method of rendering this substance insensible to cold and heat, and freeing it from the clammy properties which in- jared the use and sale ef goods, theretofore, manu- tured from it. For want of these qualities, all the manufacturers of this substance have herotofore failed, and many pees ruined. * 3 That, struggling under many oes 6 difficulties. ves Bis poverty and want of means, continued his experiments for two or three years; and after ated failures, and much loss of time and materials, in the latter part of the year 1843 he discovered that b: applying a ve pigh degree of artificial heat (from 200 degs. to gs. of Fah- rembeit) to the substance, when compounded with certain proportions of sulphur and carbonate of Jead, or other metallic bages, the qualities so much | desired would be imparted to it. That for this discovery or improvement in the art of manufacturing india rubber, he obtained a pa- | tent on the 15th of June, 1844. | This patent, owing to defects in its specification, | ‘was surrendered, and another issued on the 25th of | December, 1849, with an amended and more perfect | ‘ification. | That about the time the patent of 1844 was ob- | tained, the complainant sold to David L. Suydam, | of New York, the right to use said discovery and improvement in the manufacture of shirred or cor- d goods, for which license said Suydam reed to pay the sum of $15,000. thet soca after Suydam had commenced manu- facturing shirred goods, the respondent Day com- meneced the same business in violation and dis. regard of the rights granted by said patent to | Goodyear | That Day, by overstocking the market with an | inferior article, and denying the validity of said tents, so annoyed, vexed, diseor said | Suydam, that he refused to go on with his contract, | or to pay the $15,000, and re-transferred his license | to complainant. That suits at law and in equity | were instituted against Day and his agents, both in | Wew York and at Boston. To these suits Day set | up, a8 a defence, that said patents were void, be- | eause Hayward and Goodyear were not the inven- | tors or discoverers of the improvements set forth | therein. That, after much preparation made on both sides for the trial of these issues, at November term, 1846, Day applied to Goodyear to settle and discontinue the suits, offering to confess judgment on one of them, to pay $5,000 damages, and buy from Goodyear a license for the exclusive mauufacture of shirred goods under said patents, to pay three cents per yard, and stemp the goods with Goodyear’s neme, and not to make apy other article to infringe the patents. That these terms were accepted, ar- ticles of agreement executed, and all the suits dis- continued and released by complainant, except one on which judgment was entered in favor of the plaixtiff, which was satislied by the payment of the said $5,000 damages by Day. Since that time, Day, in utter disregard of his contract, and of the rights secured to complainant by said patents, has com- menced to manufacture other articles than shirred goods, and sell them in large quantities, to the great injury of (he complainant. e bill prays that the defendant may render an account of the articles made and sold by the re- spondent, in disregard of the putenta of complain- ant, and not included in the license from him to de- fendant; and for an injunction against Day, re- straining him from the further infringement and violation of said patents The defendant, Day, in his answer denies: 1. That Goodyear isthe owner of any new and useful improvements, as claimed by the bill 2. Admits a patent was granted for an invention ef Hayward’s, but denies that it vested in Good- year any exclusive right to the use of sulphur in the manufacture of india rubber goods, for that the ine vention of Hayward was in pablic use, with his eonsent and allowance, before the application for a patent 3. He denies that Goodyear was the first inventor er discoverer of the beneficial effects of a high de- gree of heat applied to india rubber. 4. The answer then sets forth iniacc verba the patent to Goodyear of 15th June, 1844, and ae ceeds to enumerate various companies and indivi- duals who are alleged to have manufactured india rubber with sulphur, white lead, and a high degree of heat. é 5. Without denying directly the infringement by defendant of complainant’s gatents, the answer alleged that he has not used, in the manufacture of mada rubber goods, a combination of gum, sulphur, aad white lead, in the proportions claimed specially in said letters patent. 6. The avewer proceeds to deny that Goodyear is the inventor of shirred or corrugated goods, and proceeds to name others who made and used them. As the bill has no such charge or allegation, this part of the answer need not be further noticed. 7 That complainant, 1849, surrendered his patent of 1844, and took out two new patents one fer an improvement in felting india rubber with cotton fibre; that both the re-issued patents, are void for various reasons set forth at length. 8. auswer repeats frequently that the de- fendant used all the combinations of the patent of 1844 more than two years before that time; and enumerates some twelve patents, the use of which he has purchazed, and alleges that the re-issued patent of complainant interferes with come of them. 9. The answer admits the euits brought against defendant for infringement of Goodyear'’s patents ; the settlement and discontinuance of said suits; and sets the articles of agreement executed by the parties at Iength, taking some collateral issues as to some immaterial circumstances connected there- with, which need not be mentioned 10. That Goodyear wilfully and fraudulently deceived the defendant, to induce him to enter into the said agreement, giving no other reagen for the assertion, however, than that William Judson was a part owner of Goo¢year’s patents at the tite WL. That William Judson, James A. Dorr, and John Haskins, are parties in interest, and should be made parties complainant 12. That Goodyear did not protect defendant in the exclusive rights guaranteed to him by the agreements. 13. That when this agreement wes made, the de- fendant ‘‘ meant to reserve his right” to manafac- ture in any way he pleased the moment Goodyear failed to protect him in the exclusive right of manu- facturing shirred goods; and because this was done, had “repudiated hie eaid contracts,” aud pleads wach repudiation in bar of this bill 14. That complainant is barred from recovering the tariff covenanted in the articles to be paid on ahirred goods, up to lat of January, 1849, by a ver- dict and judgment at law ia @ suit tried in this court. 15. That Goodyear’s patent of 1844 was invalid, by reason of combining two separate inventions— one for rubber compound, the other for felting cloth, (the latter of no value) ; that the claim in | the patent of 1849 is fraudulent, because it claims | the “ application of heat to the curing of rubber ;” that by this rurrendered and fraudulent renewal of his patent, Goodyear bas annulled sald articles of agreement. 16. That defendant bas not used the compount described in Goodyear’s patents of 1841 and 1549, but has used other and better compounds. 17 The answer concludes by praying ‘‘ a trial by uy of the various issues of fact formed by it.” the value of the subject matter in egutroversy in this case be in any sncasure proportionate to the amount of costs and expenses, the number of volumes of printed record, the number and emi- mence of the counsel, or the zeal and abili > played in the argument, it mum be one of great im- portance to the parties tn its results, if not im its principles. Numerous points, beth offact and law, have been od amd submitted by the counsel, wany ef which might have been avoided, if such had been the desire of the complainaut, by the form of the bill. Much of the answer, also, is occupie) with matter either wholly irrelevant or merely tendiag to evade the consideration of the cast We shall, therefore, only notice such points stated fn the answer as lave been relied on in the arga- ment, without further criticism of the pleadings than to say, thas the defendant is not estop| od from denying the validity of complainant's prtente, al- though be would have been if the bill had con- — . ar and » he proper avers: Contd. ratio . bbe Aes galsaed for want of proper parties 16 pas been ont- depded tbat ther bill should be disaiagd Vevdurs . on ques? Jobn Haskins, Wiliam Judson, have not been made parties. ins was but mere licensee of the com- Hash inant; and although sach licensees may be ted indirectly by a decree in favor of compleinar ingament from sertein testimony im the case, it was wholly unsuvcessful. Thee dofendens need not rot the candor of-bie answer in admitting it. ‘be ques‘ion now under consideraticn is, there- fore, #hether any other person had succeoded in | wd James A. Dorr | they are not nocessary parties. Hesides,¢ne agrov- | discovering and perfecting the p r | ment with Haskins, if not surrendered to plainci mevafacture claimed in the pateut'e? isii and has been long abandoned, and cai Broke 1819 before Charlee Goodyear Was ‘vulcanized | affect the 1 f this case in ony manner. — india rbb asnow known in the art The assignments to Dorr end Jndzon eontain cor- ng it tain words, which, if taker alone, would convey « knowr legal title to certa ded is; but when we ping s hed Y t lead, parties Wa. a Goodyear’ pro- portion of the patent. 1b before his discovery. Bat to what purpose? sole power of disposal, and, conseq' ir experiments ended in discovering nothing, Goodyear. Derr and Judson are cestu except, perhaps, that they had rained fhem:elves. entitled to a share of the profits made b. The great diference betweon them and Goc year ‘The defendant di ] Judsi tion, lt with Goodyear is, that he p ed in the con r they ma 1 wery any ne recovered in their settlement with great utility hea been invented, that the oD We do not think that they are of the public-has been turned to that subj pree as parties, in order that the may i ; and that many perso: ve been making | make a full and final decree ‘They were es and experiments. Philosophera and me- | present in Court, are willing to bs made par- ties on the record, if necessary, and if any diffi culty should be anticipated on that subject, the Court will suspend the decree till they are made parties, and consent to he bound by it. See Story, ; on B ay § 237. We do not, therefere, consider this oi culty ag such a one as should stand in the | way of our proceeding to a final decree in this case. | II. Another objection on which the defendant re- | sists the decree for an injunction is, that the com- lainant has not established his title at law. It has een argued by the counsel for defendant thet the | verdict of a jury on the question of the validity of a patent is absolutely required by the practice of | Courts of Chancery, before granting a final injunc- tion ; and that this is a right or privilege which the Court is bound to accord to the efendant, when the answer takes issue on this point. chanicians may have, in some measure, anticipated, in their speculation, the possibility or probability of such discovery or invention ; meny experiments may have beon unsuccessfully tried, coming very near, yet falling short of the dosired result. They have produced nothing beneficial. The invention, when perfected, may truly be said to be the culmi- | nating point of many experiments, not only by the inventor, but by many others He may have pro- | fited indirectly by the unsuccessful experiments and failures of others; bet it gives them no right to | claim a share of the honor or the profit of the suc- ceesful inventor. It is when speculation has been reduced to practice, whexi experiment has resulted in discovery, and when that discovery has been perfected by patient and continued experiments— | when some new compound, art, manufacture, or machine, has been thus prodused, which is useful | It is true that in England the Chancellor will , to the pine. that the party making it becomesa generally not grant a final and perpetual injunction | public benefactor, and entitled to a patent. in patent cases, when the answer denies the va- | And yet when genius and patient perseverance lidity of the patent, without sending the parties to | have at length succeeded, in spite of snoers and | law to bave that question decided. But evon there | scoffs, in perfecting some valuable invention or | the rule is not absolute or universal ; it is a practice discovery, how seldom is it followed by reward. Envy robs him of the honor, while’ specul: swindlers, and Jape rob him of the profits. Every unsuccessful experimenter who did, or did not, come very near making the discovery, now claims it. Brey ee who can invent an improve- ment, or vary its form, claims @ right to pirate the original discovery. We need not summon Morse, or Blanchard, or Woodworth, to prove that this is the usual history of every great discovery or inven- | founded more on convenience than necesssity. It | ators, always rests on the sonnd discretion of the Court. A trial at law is ordered by a Chancellor to inform his conscience ; not because either party may de- mand it as aright, or that a Court of Equity is in- Fee to judge of questions of fact, or of legal | eB. In the courts of the United States, the practice is | by no means so general as in England, oras it would be here, it the trouble of trying issues at law de- | tion. volved upon a different court. | . Whe present case adds another r to Cases involving inquiries into the most complex | this long and uniform history. Every man who has | and difficult questions of mechanics and philosophy | made experiments with india rubber, sulphur, lead, are becoming numerous in the courts. Often ques- or any other substance; who has heated them in a tions of originality, and infringement of patents, do not depend 20 much on the credibility of witnesses or the weight of oral testimony, as on the applica- tion of ciples of science and law to admitted . true, that in matters of opinion, both mechanics and learned professors will But still the question is not to be decided by the nu: ber, credibility, or respectability, of such witnesses; but by the force and weight of the reasons given for | their respective opinions. It is no reflection on trial by jury to say, that cases frequently occur, in which ten out of twelve jurors do not understand the prin- ciples of science, mathematics, or philosophy, neces- | the defendant, who appears to have discovered at sary toa correct judgment of the case. Besides, much | length that he himselt was probably the inventor ; of the time of the courts is lost, where twelve men | a fact which appears to have been unknown to him will not agree on any verdict; or when they have , in 1846, when actions were first brought against | agreed, the conscience of the Chancellor, instead of _ him for pirating this diecovory; a fact, also, which | feeling enlightened, rejects it altogether. others are more ready to prove thas him- A select or special jury of philosophers, if they self to assert. Notwithstanding the indomitable | cou'd be got, would perhaps not prove more satis- energy and perseverance with which this attempt factory or obviate the difficulty. Inthe late case | to invalidate the patent has been pursued, the involving the validity of Morse’s telegraph patents, volumes of testimony with which it is oppressed, and which was heard in Philadelphia, a final injunction the great ability with which it has been canvassed was decreed without a verdict, to establish the pa- in the argument, we are of opinion that the defen- tents; and many other cases might be cited from dant has most signally failed in the attempt to show other circuits, if necessary, in support of this prac- | that himself or any other person dissovered and per- tice, showing that the courts of tne United States fected the process of manufacturing vulcanized do not always consider it a proper exercise of their india rubber before Charles Goodyear. discretion to order euch issues to be tried at law, The testimony about Collins, which has been , before granting a final injunction. most relied on in the argument, contains much in- In the present case there are many reasons why ternal evidence of falsehood; it proves too much, the Court will not thus exercise their discretion:— and too little; it is felo de se. Yet, assuming it to 1. Because this case has been set down for final be true, it amounts to no more than this: that he hearing on the exhibits and proofs, without avy had used the ingredients of sulphur, white lead, motion or order of the Court for such an issue. &e, in connection with the rubber; that he had 2 After a patient hearing of very able counsel, heated them; that he may have had some partial and a careful consideration of the testimony, the success, which, if pursued with perseverance and Court feel no doubt or difficulty on these questions, judgment, might have resulted in the discovery of which would be removed or confirmed by a verdict. Vulcanized rmbber. He may poet have been £0 8. It would require three or four weeks, at least, near the discovery as’ to stumble over it. Yot ho to try this case before a jury, if this library of testi- never went on to perfect his experiments. They mony were read to them; and at least as many were abandoned without a successful remit. Every months, if the witnesses were examined viva voce, factory that employed him, end epee oe No goo of stove or furnace; whe has annoyed his family and his neighbors with sulphurous gas; who has set up a rubber factory and Jailed; who made india rub- | ber goods that no one would buy, or, if bought, were returned ag wortless ; in fine, who had ceased their experiments and endeavors, because they had not discovered that such qualities could be given to that substance; are now paraded forth as the inven- tors and discoverers of vulcanized india rubber. It is but just to many of these persons to say, that they themselves have made no such claim. It has been now for the first time made for them by as they probably would be d, aftor all thisex- services or his secret, failed. penditure of time and labor, it is even more than ‘vulcanized india rubber” made by him, probable, that from the confusion created by tho or in the factories that employed him, great length of the testimony and argument in court, or the force and effeet of those urged from without, no verdict would be obtained, and most cer- tainly none that would alter the present conviction of the Court. 4. But even if it were the right of the defendant to demand such an issue in ordinary cases, there aro suflicient reasons why it should not be accorded in have survived to prove his success. Time, which devours all things, may be presumed not yet to have digested or destroyed all the vulcanized rubber supposed te have been made (if it ever had been made) by Collins and the various other pre- tenders. The sum ofthe evidence so industriously collected appears to be this, and this only. Others nave made experiments: they have tried sulphur, white Jead, and a high degree of heat, and have failed to perfect any valuable discovery. Goodyear has used these elements, and perfected a valuable art. They have failed: he has succeeded. IV. The objection that the patents to Goodyear are invalid, because both Hayward and himself had severally abandonened their discoveries to the pub- lic is not sustained. The ques:ion of abandonment to the public must always depend, in a great measure, on the peculiar nature of the subject matter. The mere sale of a peculiar manufacture, which does not, onits face, disclose the nature of the compound, or the mode of producing it, is not such an abandonment. That india rubber could be treated so as to have the qua- lities that it is now known to possess in its ‘‘vulean- ized” etate, could not be discovered by any reasoning a priori. Those acquainted with the subject might conjecture, hope, or believe, that such a thiog might be discovered. But the discovery must necesearily be empirical—the result of timo, experiment, or chance ; of patient attention to phenomena exhi- bited, and reeults obtained. And when the fuct of possibility is ac length established, the best mode of obtaining the given result must be tested by fre- quent axd patient experiment, and observation. The compound or substance called ‘ vulcanized india rubber” wasof no actual value per se, but only as it could be made to enter into the manufacture of other articles, and communicate its peculiar qua- lities to them. How those articles would retain those qualities in use and command a market, could be tested only by time and experience. Neither Hayward nor Goodyear would have been justifted in shouting ‘* Eureka” and claimiog a patent on the firet appearance of succes? in their respective expe- timents Goodyear exhibited the substance dis- covered by him and some goods manufactured with it in Enoglend in 1843. He sold come of the goods here ut he did not disclose to the public either there or here, the method of compounding his mu- terial or whet constituted his roal secret or discovery. An exhibition of tho manufactured articles did not disclose it, except that. from the smeil, it might be inferred that sulphur had been somehow used in its concoction Tranoux, who obtained a patent in England for the same dis- covery, bad seen Goodyear’s articles, and thus as- certained that euch a material could be made, but not the mode of effecting it. His patent was held valid by the English courts, on the ground that, al- though Goodyear had first made iho discovery in America, he had not abandoned it to the public by the sale of the mac ufnctured articles; and that the use of the manufacture was not the use of the in- vention, as the material itself did not disclose the means of making it; and that, therefore, was entitled to be considered an original inventor. it iz true that discoverers might sometimes deal unfairly with the public, by enjoying their mono- poy 80 long as their procces remained eecret, and secking a patent only when it wae in danger of dis- covery. How far such conduct might invalidate « patent will be decided, when such a case arises. Is is sufficient for the purposes of the prosant case, that wo say, that the evidence docs not show our abandonment of the processes patented to the pub- hie: or that the pateatecs delayed longer to take out their patents than was justifiable under the pe- culiar circumstances of the case. ¥. We now come to the objections which have hon made to the reissue or amended patent of 0 1. The first objection is, that the patents of 1844 and 1849 are not for the same invention This defendant commenced his infringoment of the plaintiff’s patents soon after they were issued. Actions st law were bronght against him and his agents ; the cases were prepared for trial ; the de- fendant foand he couid not defend himself, and he agreed to give judgment on one of the suits; he paid damages for his infringemonts ; he purehased a license to use plaintiff's disco- very in the manufacture o! ebirred goods ; he covenanted not to use it in the manufacture of any other than the articles specified in his license; he does not allege any mistake or misrepreeentation, or the discovery of any new evidence or fact since that time, or that any one but himself disputes the con- plainant’s rights, or invades them with impua' All these facts are arrarese onthe face of the plead- ings, and do not entitle the defendant to any claim of favor in the use of our discretion, or to any ac- tion of the Court which will add to its enormous expenses, and greatly protract the results of this suit. Lf, Without requiring the aid of a jury, we shall therefore proceed to examine the questions, both of fact and law, which affect the validity of complain- ant’s patents. The patents are themselves sufficient prinrz facie evidence that the patentees were the original inven- ters or discoverers of the things patented, and that the ame are new and useful. Since the patent act of 1896, the Commissioner of the Patent Office acts Sicially on these subjects. He is bound to 4) and decide them, before granting a patent But as they proceed, ex parte, their action is not conclusive on those who were not parties to the pro- ceeding. The burthen of proof, therefore, lies on the defendant, to chow that any other persons than Hay- ward and Goodyear were the original inventors or discovers of the things patented To give a history of the various experiments on the substance called caoutchouc or india rabber, and of their success or failure, previous to those of Hay- ward and Goodyear, or to notice particularly the testimony of each of the huadred witnesses who have bern examined, would require us to add another to the numerous yolumes which already en- cumber this case Being unwilling to inflict on ourtelves the labor of writing, and on others that of heating cr readic g such a treatise, we shall not at- pete to vindicate the correctness of our decision by analyzing the testimony, and arraying the volume, pége, aud folio, which justifies our conclusions, but shill merely state the results to which we have ar- rived, after carefal consideration of the whole case. Previous to the years 1834 and "35, many expori- ments had been mado, and much capital exponded in attempts to manufacture caoutchouc, orindia rab- ber: oriather te employ it inthe manufaoture of various articles for the purpose of imparting to them the peculiar quality ofthis substance. Ali attempts to do this ina satisfactory manner had been, in a great measure, if not wholly, unsuccessfal. Tae defects in the articles manufactured on the various plans discoveries thus far made. were sach as to destroy their value in market The goods be- came cla and sticky by heat; they were made bard and by cold It is true that, in this va- riet proc 2 ty of experiments and failures, many facts and see | y d been discovered which were partialiy ut the —— and important fact, tha bber could by any teeatment or combina- tion, be made to aseume the peculiar and valuable qualities now known to be possessed by the material or eubstance called ‘vulcanized india rubber,” had not been discovered About this time Goodyear commenced his experi- | ments Fora long time he was uneuccessful. He This object’on is not founded % r , iq on fact. Both the spent his mon his tims, bis credit. Ais patents nre for precisely the same thvention or dis- family was r +o poverty, and himself cove They both describe, in nearly the same tmmurediua prison. Yet svill he persisted And finally hia faith and evergy were rewarded by the discovery, the value of whieb this contr most abundantly proves. Ay we know sub only by its quali he may be said to have covered & new substance; or at least the fact that ndia rubber, by certain combinations and manipu- ii could be made to assuwe oortain valuable qual which it did not betore possess, and the mode of imparting them ig, the best mode of manufacturing xposing it wa high degree of heat in counection ulplur and white lead; by which troatment the enbstance is endowed with new and valuable qualitics which it did not possess before. The dis: covery ie the same; the moue of munuta cturieg the compound is the same. ‘The firet patent bad set forth the nature and extent of the invention defectively. There is no rea to doubt the bona fides and pr opricty of the ndia rubber, Previous to thie time Nathaniel Hayward hid se-issue. It ia appar iF h » , . Pparent on the fave ot the papers, ciseovered that sulphur could be need to great ad- ¢yen if th tion of the co H ‘ i. i) % he oomB lesions int ¢ tho rubber, and had assigned his waa not conclusive, sioner on that py! diseovery to Goodyear, and apatont — 2, ‘Ty he ohjection “that the description in the epeciticntion is obscure and insufficient, ig aa assere tion wholly unsupported by any testimony in the cauee, & The objection “that rubber and sulphur ean- not be vuleauized in heated atmosphere, is not only irrelevent Hat ucéupported by the evidence. That ued tL 18M when Goodyear had perfected invention by continued experiments, that he obtained a patent. This patent was afterward found to be defective, and wae eurrotdered and caneelled, a new one gran ied in 1849 As the ane ra enn the further wt preeeur then to say, Untt, wowmeine | ending Lhe weary: Lo youl overt Ubis fave on the rok pot t ortyt eye ' 4 Ale dourde orycousa 19, dies bid we ber patent claius more thea was deserived ia the vu: gi | | that the original mistake had amounted to a dedi- nal.” If the latier patent is for precisely the same invention, art, or dircovery 2s that deseribed in the first, the objection that it cleims more, is a mic- take of fact. Ifthe last patent differs from the first only in stating more clearly and definitely the real | pri les of the invention, so that those who wish to pirate it may not be allowed to escape with im- punity through the fmperfeetion of the language used in the first, then bas arisen o1 for which it was the intention of the to provide, and the objection law. 5. It is claimed, also, that th is void, be: were in public use, in the of the original and the re-issue, and dedicated to the public, and canmos be resumed by the re-iesue. This objection is founded on an which cannot be conceded It asi publication ef discovery or invent live patent, is a dedication crabandonmen the public. If such bo the case, the permission given by the act to re-issue a patent, on accouat of defects, is of little value, and a snare te inventors. | ‘The most skilful and ingenious inventor able to draw upa valid specification of his inven- tion, and not many lawyers have suflisient expo- rience and knowledge, both scientific and legal, to do it for him. The original patents for some of the most valuable modern inventions now known have been afterwards discevered to be insufficient, and the patents have been renewed, with specifications setting forth, not a different or improved machine. but the same machine or invention, and a correcte statement of what isthe true nature and extent of the peran tae claim. Every specification or claim which correctly sets forth the true nature and fall extent of an invention, may be said to be broader than the one which fails to doit. To decide that such a difference would vitiate the last patent, or cation to the public of everythin; claimed in the specification, would leave the rights of inventors in a most precarious situation and the right given to amend their patents s mere illusion. not correctly ‘he original mnt of Woodworth, issued in 1828, | ‘was most alpat ly defective and worthless. It was renewed in 1845, and the true nature and extent of his claim correctly set forth. The Court decided that the renewed patent was valid, because it was for the same invention ; and that the question to be decided was not whether the last patent differed from the first in the extent of the or state- ment of the distinctive npn of the invention, provided it claimed nothing more the same machine. The right to amend the description of the claim, so as to make the patent a of the real invention to its and true extent, is what the law intended to confer on the inventor. The e of claiming too little, in the original pales, has an equal disim to correction with that much. ‘ The case hay decided at Philadelptila, about the machines for breaking and screening coal, has no application to the present. The renewed patent in that case was for a dif- ferent machine from that described and ed in the original; and the machine claimed and cribed in the last patent had been abandoned to the public for many years. But in this case the art of man vulcanized india rubber, having cer- tain qualities not before known, is all that is claimed in the renewed patent: and the same art or discovery was described in the al. Itincluded two several inventions, and its validity was on that account doubted (whether correctly or not is im- material); a separate renewal was a just and proper. precaution, and one which the complainant had covenanted with the defendant to obtain. amendments in the last, by setting forth the true extent, and distinotive principle of the inven- tion, was a right vested in the patentee, and a wrong to no one, and more especially to the defen- dant in this case. In examining questions of identity or infringe- ment, we should first ascertain wherein consists the substantial peculiarity which distinguishes the art or invention patented from all others. Whoever adopts, or Specipaaies sueh distinctive peculiarity, or principle, without license of the patentee, appro- | priates the invention and infringes the patent, if | its specification be correctly drawn. Goodyear’s invention or discovery did not con- eist merely in the use of sulphur or lead, or both ; or the application of heat to rubber in connection | with both, either, or neither of them; all these | things had been done before, perhaps, to little | purpose. The essential and distinctive peculiarity of his discovery is, that by using a certain degree of heat | in the treatment ot rubber, in connection with those materials, it can be made to assume new and valua- ble qualities, distinguishing it from any other sub- | stance heretofore known. Whoever manufactures | this material, or imparts its peculiar qualities to manufactured goods, by taking advantage of the peculiar discovery of Goodyear, pirates it, whother the patent be sufficient or not. If the specification of the original patent was so ill drawn as to permit this to be done with impunity ; if it fully disclosed the art, or invention, but left the patent open to evasion or invasion, the property of the inventor | may be cowpared to a field with an insufficient en- | closure. Tregpassers may take advantage of it, and | defend themselves on the ground thst the fence was not legal and suffisient, according to the statute; but, though they may escape punishment by such a | plea, they gained no right of entry, or property in the field. | It is no justification of the infringement of a re- newed patent, that the infringer had stolen and used the invention with impunity, before the patent was amended. The inventor, it is true, may pos- sibly not be able to recover damages for such use, | antecedent to the date of the renewed patent; but | such previous use, though confers no right to the invention, or to future immu- rity forits infringement. The seventh section of the act of 3d March, 1839, ch. 88, protects those who “ have purchased or constructed a newly in- vented machine, &e., prior to the application of the inventor, or discoverer, for a patent,” but con- fers no such privilege on those who may have seized upon an invention or discovery disclosed in a patent, whose specification may happen to be defective or | insufficient. Onthe contrary, the thirteenth sec- tion of the act of July, 1836, which regulates the re-issued patents, declares ‘that the patent so re- issued, together with the corrected description and specification, shall have the same effect and opera- tion in law as though the same had been originally filedin such corrected form, before the issuing out | of the original patent.” VI. After what has been said, but a few words will he necessary, on the question of infringement. ‘The answer does not contain a direct denial of the infringement of both of thepatents. The assertion that he ‘* has not used the compound in the propor- tion described inthe patents but has used other and better ccmpound,” is evidently a mere evasion or rather an admission that he has been attempt- ing to evade while actually infringing the patente, in disregard both of the law and his solemn con- tract. The allegation that he has purchased other patents may be true, but it isimmaterial. If the other patents shewed a better right to the inven. tiens claimed by Gioodyear’s patents, they were not given in evidence; if they were for mere variations or improvements of the discovery patented by Good- year, they were wholly irrelevant. ‘There is another feature in the defense set up in this answer which the Court are compelledto notice. It claims a right to exercise all the privileges granted by the contract, while it repudiates its obligations. And, morcover, it seems not only to claim to ox- ereise a license granted for using the patents in the manufacture of shirred tire without paying ths tariff or compensation ; but also the right to violate the patonts with impunity asregards all othor articles | the various covenants, amendments, and additions, | signed and sealed by these parties, constitute in | fact but one agreement. Though dated ondifferent days, they are but consecutive portions of a long negotiation, never concluded till after the last in- strument was signed The eovenant not to use the plantiff’s patented discoveries in the manufacture of other articles than those for which he hada license, like & covenant not to rob him, may be considered superfluous. When law governs, the action of trespass or case for a tort, will afford as ample arémedy as an action on a special covenant not tocommit it Ifthe monopoly of using these patents in the manufacture of shirred goods, granted | and warranted to Day by these articles, has been | materially injured through any negligence or fraud | of Goodyoar, Day will undoubtediy havea right to thow such fact in evidence, and recoup the Sonate | caused thereby, in any action, either at law or equity | demanding the compensation or tariff agreed to be | paid forthe license or monopoly. In the action | heretofore prosecuted at law by the same parties on | this agreement, Day did receup or sot of such | damages, against the demand for the tariff—in a | case, to0, Where it was saown that Goodyear had acted in good faith, and had done all in his power to protect | the monopoly of Day; but the injury to Day | was effected by the fraudulent conduct of others, | whose acts neither Goodyear nor Day eould control. | All damage for breach of the covenants of this arti- cle, up to the date of the institution of that sait, | mutt be considered as adjudicated in that suit. The allegation of the plea of the defendant in that | hat the injury to Day’s monopoly was done | @ collusion of Goodyear, was treated as super- fluous, and the jury instrneted to allow the set-off | without evidence of collusion. Lhe pleas entered in that case had evidently been intended to draw a demurrer, but isques having been taken on thom, many of which were whollyirrelovant, it was thought better for the intereste of both the parties to diepose | of the merils, without regard to the uet of ill drawn pleadings with which it was entangled. | In the present ease, the whole controverry between the parties, except so far as it has been previously | litigated and decided, is presented, though somowhat | informally, by the bill and answer. ‘The latter sete | forth the contract in hace verba Though the peryer | i of the bill coes demand wn newaot of tarilt ee hiried yovle, he oneer® and wre vows it Dare Prvenened UM Line Muypesition Th oh 16 did | We eauiet permit tbe plainki ty spt wp e with impunity, | his | pistol in the bands of a young lad. bis claims a the defendant, thas he | General Pierce may barass the defendant with aucther trinium | of litigation, in actions at law fur past breaches of his covenants. The decree must be Tost all on causes of action between the parties up to itedate, whether founded on the contract or for infringement of the patents. The contract required the assent of two winds to make it, aud the repudiation mus: be mutual, in order to annul it As the defendant has not succeeded in showing the patents to be void, he can hardly be supposed to desire an abandonment of the contract which would subject him to much reater damages. What would have been the conse quenee to him if the complainant, by amending his bill, had joined him in the rejection and destruction of this agreement, we need not inquire. But this con- tract has been made after great deliberation, and as many acts have been done, and large sume of | money paid in port performance of its stipulations ; and not only so, bub as it has been adjudged to be a | binding and subsisting contract in suits at law where both parties have relied on its covenants, it cannot row be treated as a nullity, even though the ptain- tiff may now assert his readiness to join the defend- ant in itsrepudiation. The parties eannot be put in the same situation as if this agreement had never been made. And the Court will not, in a decree in- tended to put av end to lisigation. attempt to undo what has been done, and set aside what has been already adjudicated between the parties. Sacha course would cause great difficulty, and renew old disputes Interest respwhlice est finis litium, The Court aod the public have an interest in this matter, and the parties cannot be indulged, even if they were willing to pursue a course so harassing and injurious, if not ruinous to both. These articles of agreement were originally framed for the avowed pui of putting an end to Litiga- tion, but by some fatality, or, perhaps, necessarily, (from the numerous and contradictory covenants of parties dealing with fear and distrust ofeach other,) they seem to have furnished fuel for a worse firo than that which they extin; d. If the defen- dant has exercised the pri: e, or enjoyed the li- cense granted to him by the agreement, he should pay the consideration contracted for, and be com- led to perform the stipulations. The evidence shows that he has made 6 profits by this mono- poly of shirred goods. He has, as yet, pee nothing for it. Itisno bar to the account of these profits that come Pee rears may have manufactured some shirred goods, if it has not materially affected the profits of the defendant. If Goodyear, after notico that such infringements were committed, has no- gore to protect the defendant from such inter- ference, the Master, in stating the account, will al- low such damages as may from the amount of the tariff. The Court do therefore award an injunction, as Rrayed for in the bill, and refer the case to JamesS. reen, Esq., a8 Master, to take the accounts de- creed. By rue Covurr. Tn this conclusion Judge Dickerson concured, and delivered # written opinion. Domestic Miscellany. ete the nine —— cea in ae AC count escaped, on owing to the in- secure state of the prison. sf a A bell is about to be cast for the Catholic Cathedral of Louisville, which, when finished, will probably be the largest in the United States. It will be six Fee Vane ears om eee NL ER 3. On the 4th inst..a woman named Jane Kelley was “15806 | found dead in her bed at a house in Lee Place, Boston. | Coroner Smith held an inquest on the body, and the jury returned a verdict of “died ina fit.” Mrs. Lois Peck, widow of the late Amos Peck, of Ham- , den, Conn., lately deceased at the advanced age of one hundred years eght months and six days. She had been a member of ithe Congregational Church seventy-five years, and was at the time of her death the ancestress of one hundred and thirty-eight descendants. The infant child of Benjamin Shorter, of East Boston, was burned to death on the Sd inst. It seems that Shorter and his wife, who are of intemperate habite, lef< an infant child. six’ months old, alone on a bed, in the house, while they went out to get something to drink. Soon after they bad gone. the bed on which the babe lay was discovered to be on fire, and the poor little child's toes and feet burnt to a crisp, s0 that some ot the toes actually fell off; the body was also seriously bnrned. The | little sufferer survived only about two hours. Richard D. Cilley has been sentenced to the State prison for life, by the Common Pleas Court in Worcester. He had been convicted on two indictments for burglary in dwelling houses in Milford, in the night time, The Boston Transcript states that W. S. Woodward, | stock broker, failed on Tuesday—liabilities stated at $50,000. ‘The Treasurer of Ohio has given notice he will not re- ceive bills of 9 denomination lers than five dollars on banks out of the State. The augur and plane shop of Bernard Hughes, the ea shop of Hopewell & Stokes. and also the shop of Murtin & Brayer, were destroyed by fire, at Rochester, on the 5th inst. Loss. $3,000. ‘The money stolen from the Mt. Vernon Bank, of Fos- ter, R. I, amounting to $10,240, was found on ‘the 4th inst.. as the Providence Journal states, under the floor of an old meeting house in Coventry, R I. Two persons have been arrested for the theft. Three hundred Swedish immigrants, just arrived at Boston from Gottenberg, left om the 6th inst. for the West. where they intend to settle They are mostly farm- ers, and are a healthy, intelligent looking people. The jury of inquest in the case of the male infant found dead in a vault in Smith place, Boston, returned a verdict that it was suffocated by its mother, Hannah ‘Thompson, who is now in the South Boston Hospital. Mr, James Moore, a farmer from Flu: Genesee county, he while returning home with his load from Detroit, fell from his wagon on Wookward avenue, near the Grand Circus. He was taken to the hospital, and from injuries eustained, died on the 30th ult. A coroner’s inquest was held at Charleston on the 24 instant, on the body of Mr. John A. Wiley, who came to death from a wound received on the 20th ult., from a A fireman’s parade took place in Trenton. N.J., onthe 5th ins! ost of the companies being out with music, ban- ners, &c., and their mac! 8 decorated with flowers. The District Court of the United States opened in Alba a on the 6th inst . Judges Nelson and Hall presiding. The Jerry rercue indictments will be moved for trial on the 19th. The Ohio Statesman says:—We have bad a visit during the past week from three great men—Tom Thumb, Gene- ral Winfield Scott, and John P. Hale. Tom Thumb drew decidedly the turgest crowds, The Canal Board at Albany have resolved to close their doors and bold their meetings in private. ‘The Buffelo and Pittsburg Railroad project appears ina fair way of going shead, The friends of the line held another meeting in Buffalo. on Wednesday. when additional subscriptions were received to the stock. William Pitt Adame. H B. M., consul at Lima, for- meriy attached to the British legation at Washington, is ea A negro woman hclonging to George M. Garrison, of Polk county, Tenn., killed four of her children, tye 0 ting their throats while they were acicep, on Thursday night, the 22 ult., and then put an end to her own exist, ence by cutting her throat. David Brooks. an Englishman. fell overboard from the steamer R. H. Lee, at St. Louis, on the 28th ult., and was drowned. He was watchman of the beat, Sherif! Crocker, of Boston, received an order, on the Sth inst.. from Governor Boutwell, directing the removal of Thomas Davis. the murderer of his sister, Mrs. Eliza- beth A. V. Van Wagner. from the county jail tothe State prison, agreeably to the recommendation of the Commit- tee on Pardons. Hon. KE. 0, Hawnegan, who killed his brother-in-law, the gallant Capt. Duncan. in a drunken brawl some time since, is now clear from all proceed His case was brought before the Fountsin (Ind but the Grand Jury failed to find an indictment. A fire broke out Oct. 4th. inthe new unfinished four story brick building in South Prospect street, Hartford. ‘The inside was burnt out, Loss about $1,000. A man by the neme of Danforth Bartlett, 33. was instantly killed in Hartford. on the 4t! while assisting to load « boiler weighing at ‘The rope of the fall broke, the boller roll erushing hie head. The Ancient City says « brilliant meteor passed over Schenectady on the evening of the Sd inst., at about nine o’elock. Its course was south to north. It emitted a train of sparks of two colors, red and yellow, making a loud buszing noise. The camal tolls on pressed have been reduced from four mills to one mill per 1,000 lbs per mile. An effort is being made to construct a railroad [from about instant, four tons, on to him, | Geshen, Orange Co., to Albany. The route would be on the west side of the river, passing through Kingston, Cats- Kill, Coxaaekie, and the other "along tee river. By a notice izsued from the Department of State, claim ants under the convention with Ecuador of 1849, in the care of the brig Morris, are hereby notified that an insta'- ment has beea received, and is now to be distribu. ted, All claimants are accordingly requested to forward to this Department, such evidence as will enable the dis- tribution to be made to the proper parties respectively. Onthe ith instant as the canal steamer Prosidemt was on her way to Harper's Ferry, and when about six miles above Georgetown, D. C., one of the Loreen gt & young man nemed Sliacleford, fell overboard, and before any ascistance could reach him he was drowned. ae Ashe yman learne ‘ont the brad A the Any on of Kobert J. McDougal, in Shippingport, was . being a strictly tompertte mse am having testified be- fore the grind jury against a pereon who sold Mauor Ille- mally. fhe wurderere are still at large. though rome persons have been arrested on suspicion. David Molntyre committed raleide om the Sith uit wt Shulisbarg, Wisconsin laure onkeown. pre. sented to bo 4 case of cool, deliberated and premeditated relf destruction, while free from derangement, 80 far as could be judged from his acts He was universally re. ~peoted by ail who knew him Alfred Jobnson. elty clerk of Milwaukie, was found dend in bis bed cn the 4th inst. Axotuen Liquor Cast.—Bridgot McLaughlin was, before the police court. yesterday afternoon, charged with eelling a glass of brandy, Bridget was found guilty, and fined $10 and costs, and to give her bond in $1000 to do so nomore. She was aleo charged with violating the Bunday law. aod fined $5 and costs for that, and fined $5 ‘and coste for some other offence, making the fines and costs near $60 in all. Bridget isa poor woman The complainant i® @ heslthy looking individual, who. we learn ie potting hic bread and chee hy eomplainiog of poor women for ihe ion of a law that is anid to be mE " ' noyieet fe Ward ray menne of getting hit own drfuks that will) gencead to euch busigeer—Loston Lieroid, Vet, 7, peered to be recouped | ud the Religious Test of New Hampshire—The Question Settled Fore ever. Jags Gorpon Beryurr, Dear Sir—A strenuous effort bas boen made to impugn the sincerity of General Pierce's opposition to the religious test Men will naturally distrnst professions made by an individual after be has bocome a candida’, when pot content with his previous acts and declarations; but when a candidate ean appeal to a c ent re- cord, he requires » perfect title to public confidence. A conclusive proof of the entire frankness and sin- ty of Genoral Pierce has come into my posses- sion, which you will greatly favor me by giving to the public in your widely circulated j la November, 1851, a strangor to me se name now appears to be EL. Flood, but whose sigaature I could not decipher, addressed to me, by letter, from Jacksonport, Arkansas, an inquiry concern- ing this celebrated religious test, in order te deter- mine a wager. In the course of a casual interview, occupying a few minutes, some twelve or fifteen years ago, and induced thereto by the fact of bis having been Presi. dent of the recent constitutional conventioa of his State, 1 forwarded the inquiry to Goneral Pierce. His reply was received by me on the 2ith of Mareh, 1852. I forwith cut from the letter of my unknown correspondent his unreadable signature; and, using it for the addross, forwarded directly to him, Gene~ ral Pierce’s original letter. That letter and my short note at the foot of it, ara as follows :— sq— Coxcono, N. H. To Cures O’Conon, Esq., New Youx City— My Dear Sir—You must have been surprised at my failure to answer your letter of December 2ith, ‘The fact is, I was ashamed to make the confession which truth would then have demanded. At the time of the adoption of our State constitution, in 1784, the retigioug test was inserted to repel taunts that had been flung out, after the French alliance. that there was ‘also to be arg alliance with the French religion, and the establishment of it here. By the convention of 1791. the provision was rejected by a decided vote, and the rojection was ratified by a majority of the people; but a two-thirds vote being required for the adoption of the amendment, the odious feature still its place, In the convention of 1850, consisting cf about 270 membere, the vote to strike out this test was almost en- | tirely unanimous—I think not more than six members Clreuit Court, , voting in the negative. The amendment of the eonsti- tution, in this respect, was submitted to the people at the late election, and although we are not in the receipt of full returns, there is reason to Deliove that the State isto be no longer disgraced by sucha provision in ita fundamental law. I hope to visit New York in May, and to have an oppor- tunity to renew the pleasant acquaintence it was my good fortune to make with you many years since. With the highest respect, your friend, FRANK PIERCE. New Yong, March 24, 1852, To E. L. Fioop, Esq.:— Dear Sir—Not being any better acquainted with the laws of New Hampshire than yourself, I addressed a dis- tinguished lawyer of that State on the question men tioned in your favor of November 30. 1851. that is:— “Whether Roman Catholics are excluded from office in the State of New Hampshire, or prohibited from hold- i office by the constitution or laws of that State?” ~ have just received his answer, and now forward it toyou, It seems that they were so excluded from office atthe date of your letter. But the disqualification has since been removed. Yours, nets. ¥ CHARLES O°CONOR. Shortly after the nomination, I addressed to the postmaster at Jackeonport, 2 request to procure for me a return of this letter, without disclosing to him its contents or my motive. On the Ist inst., Mr. Flood returned it to me, attributing the delay toan accidental cause, explained in his note. Tleave the whole original correspondence with you for free perusal. At the time that General Pierce wrote the letter to me he was not a candidate for the Presidency. Indeed, he had refused to acquiesce in the presenta- tion of his name to the Baltimore Convention. I have never seen him but once, never before his no- mination had any other correspondence with him than what is above related, or had any expectation that he would be a candidate for the Presidency at the ensuing election. Thus it is, from the daily walk and conversation of an honest man, from his casual and unpremeditated words and actions, there is ever arising some con- vincing evidence of his integrity--some effectual shield against misrepreeentation. The annual election in New Hampshire was held on the 9th March, 1852. The letter of Gen. Pierce, as will be ecen, was written shortly prior to the 24th ofthat month. He forbore to answer me until the amenément abolishing the religious test had been submitted to the people, and a couviction had arisen in bis mind that it would be adopted. ‘The wish was father to the thought.” Though it was not adopted, the responsibility for its rejection reste not upon the liberal and enlightened citizen who al- ways favored it. Iam, dear sir, Yours, repeotfally, October 6, 1852. Cr. O'Conor. Additional from California, MINING INTRLLIGENCE. From the Shasta Courier we extract the follow- ing interesting ixtelligence of the mining interests in that portion of the State :— A short time since, new diggings were discovered of unusual richness on East Weaver, about three miles gee Wen vereey ployed by the Trinidad surveying party omploye: the ini River Water cathy have coeaplecia their work, Their report is decidedly favorable, and workmen will soon be employed to carry the enterprise through. The water will be brought through somo of the richest juining country in the Weaverville district. The channel will be of sufficient aoe to supply every company in the Weaver Creek Val- ley, many of whom are now idle, and will continue to be idle until the rain comes. A sompey of four men recently took from their claim, within 2 quarter of a mile of Weaverville, between Five Cent and Ten Cent Gulches, four thou- sand dollars in one week. The health of the miners about Weaverville is represented to be very good. New diggings have been reported avout twenty- five miles from Weaverville, We are not infor as to their Leto and richness. The mines on the small creeks and gulches which put into the Sacramento river near its source, are now attracting a geod deal of attention. Some of the bars on the river are also boing partially worked. The streams putting into the Sacramento river north of Shasta, are but litfle else than mountain torrents, running through abrupt and deep ravines. In consequence of this no bars are found, and the ‘old is almost invariably obtained from the hed ef the stream, whonce it is taken by flaming. The gold is all coarse, the fine geld having been washed yy the rapid waters into the rivers. As yet but few miners have gone to tl mines, although all have great confidence in their richness. They are at a considerable distance from any settlemen:, and are in the vicinity of some hostile cribes of Indians. On Dog Creek, about fifty miles from this place, there @re row about thirty men at work, and we poe od are Se resarkaely all. ee creek ie only about eight mikes long, an many bas been flamed. Mr. Biloer, who came in from Tog Creek on Saturday last for provisions, exhi- bited to us come of the gold from this creck. It is allcoarge, but few picces weighing less tham 25 cents. Ina lot of about $200, there were several fice piel eed 3 UMA an foros we rete pase that » party of miners have very fiatte: 7 cote on iver ber near the mouth of Bogor ere the gold is much finer and tho ri deeper. MISCELLANEOUS. Screws at Sacnamenro.—The body e dressed perton was found in the rear of the Adanis’ building, on K. street, on the 21st pe fin the left breast, and also a alt! with anincision in the throat, both ca without doubt —s- . ‘The name was ascertained to be D CO. Parkhurst, one the passengers in the Staffordshire, taken lod, st the Howard House a day or two previous mitting the fatal deed. He was from Boston. evidently reeolved to ani it with the utmoet deliberation, The bloody knifs- was found upon his pereon. NOMINATIONS IN ee Rees aie yt of Sutter county met at jaus,on tho x and made the Jollowing nominations for eee and county officers: State Sonate—Joseph Hopkins ; Assembly—E 0. I Hastings ; County udge—John Algro ; County Troasurer—F. H. Ruseoil ; County ‘Asseseor—J. G. Morchond ; Pablic Administrator— Dr. R. Sprigler ; Coroner--P. 8 er. PRESENT 10 Gen. Prince —Mesers. Barrett & Sherwood, manufacturing jirelees in Clay street, are preparing a magnificent ring to be presented to Gen Frankim: Pierco, the democratic nominee for the Presidency. It is to be of tho most workmanship, will when finished weigh one anda half, and be eight inches in cirou The gold is of the finest quality that could be ob- tained in California, and the worl ip is of the most excellent description. It will be com in afew days, when the name of the donor will be made inewh dhe Califorma, Aug. 26. Tne Prize Fiant.—The late grand pugilistie on- counter at Mare Island, appears to have beena highly unestisfuctory affair. A sult bas been insti tuted to recover one of the large bets, exceptions taken to the decision made, and counter statements published. A Cnn has beon made and ac- cepted, and judging from the small knots of the mon gathered on tho stree ~willehortly tohe ntwce Te ff j Ones as @ BAGG fact.— Alia C