The New York Herald Newspaper, October 16, 1852, Page 3

‘eleared up the mist in which the defendant’s coun- ee eave emegted Jo'skrons it, I shall proceed to consider the offeot produced on the prima facie title of that patent, by the evidence offered against it. firet, of the French, or Wheeler, or Coolidge, or Collior- gua—for it is all the same instrument, desi; nated the different names of the ns who to own it, at the different times to which the evidence refers. This invention was made by Artemas Wheeler, near Bostoo, in 1818; aad it was certainly a very ingenious, although » ype useless contrivance. I hold in my band a mode! mado socording to the patent and drawings, which I made myealt, ‘and which is so constructed that your honors oan inspect ite works, while in actual mn. A watch spring is coiled up in the inside the cylinder, which, being wound up in one direc- ion, has a tendency to rao down again, and carry with it tho oylinder, in av opposite direction. Of course, when it is run down, there is an end to its 3 and you may then cock the gun till the doom, and it rotates no further till again wound up. Mr. Colt’s cylinder rotates every time you cook it, and never can fail to rotate uatil some- thing breaks or wears out The clock which keeps the timo ia this hall is wound up, and will run till the spring is reluxed That is like the Freveh gui If some one sbould invent a perpet metion, and apply it to that clock, by wi it would rup always, without winding up, that would be like Mr eit’s gun; and if such an invention were made, would it ever enter into any body’s head to say that it was no invention, because a clock had been made to go by being wound xp, Leupposo not. Yet that te tne argument here. Mr. Blunt, wio is an ingenious workman, has made a gua lige this out of steel aod iron, and brought it intocourt. But when I asked bim if be had fired it, or if he thought it coutd be fired twice round, he said no. Of course it cavnot be, and there never was one made that was fired [tisonlya toy, But if gentlemon think they can make euch guna, I have to o7 that I shall never troubie them tor doing it; aad { wish them al! the success in the undertaxin, which porsoverance, euch as would overcome tho dif- ficulties of the case, would entitle them to. Use it, withall my heart, but do vot rob us of ours. Now, cas have eaid that it was the great issue in. » whether there ever was such a gun as this, and that [there denied it Ju this gentlemen are mistaken. Of course [ couid not deny it, for it is @ patented invention, and tbis very one I now hold in my hand, | constructed tor the Boston trial, for the oe purpose of showing how and what the thing was. Thero was an issue there, that no such guus bad ever beem made to operate; an of that I shall presentiy epeak But what was done at Boston does not seem to please counsel oa the other ede. He says it was s pantomime, and no trial. Well, there was some of the most effective pantomime played thero that I ever saw—acta that were more conclusive than words ; and I will show your honors a.scene or two of it. Suppose tea Harvey to be on the stand, and to have sworn that the French gun and Col. Colt’s are exuctly alike, and that the French gun rotates by the act of cocking, I then take this model in my hanc—‘: Well, General, you ere sure of that are you; it wont rotate any other way, exospt by the act of cocking ?” Ol yes, I am sure of that.” I then bus tho gun on the ground thus (counsel here shows the motion), and the cylinder rotates by the power of the spring. ** Well, General, how do you ascouut tor that 7” Of course, there is no other way thau to say it can rotate by other moans; and so the General admits, but in- sists that tho rotation. after 2!!, is produced by ius combination of the lock aud cylioder. I then draw out this little pin, which | mde so as to detach the lock from tho eaHnoe in order to meet such non- senge, and behold ! the cy!inder rotates as well with- out apy look at all as it did with it. Do your honors not think that this pantomime is better than an hour’s talk on the principles of the thing in the ab- straot? There is no answer to such pantomime; and, of coureo, the witness disnpoears like a panto- mime clown through a hole in the floor. a fe a Another very effective piece of pantomime was | played on that trial on the witness Collier. It re- lated to the question whether uny gans were mado | like this Frexob gun to work Coilier was called upon the stand. Ho is a man ubout six feot two inches tall, well dressed, and with a face expressive of the cardinal virtucs and ten commandments, and you would as soon expect to heurthe judge commit per- jury as him. Being exawined in chief, he swore that he made ten thousand poun ts worth of guns, just like the French gun, for the East India Company. He produced drawings and a model; he exhibited a printed certificate of their vuiue; be described the i ith circumstantial accuracy. On cross ox- amination, 1 asked him if ho was sure the guns were 807? He was. I asked him if he had nevor mado any other sort of rotary guns? He had not. I asked him if he never made rotary gunsto turn by hand ? He hadnot. At a sigual given, the door behind the poor wretch opened, und two won entered, bearing arms full of guns made him—band turning guns, with his name on thom. b Here are some of them, your honors, numbered from | 42 te 400. Mr. Collier was shown the guns. “Did you mako these, sir?” ‘Yos” ‘Ara thoy the epch guns or hand turniog-guns?” *‘Hand guns.” “Here is No. 42; were tho other 41 like this or like the French gua?’ ‘Like this.” “Now, tell us whethor you ever made any gun that worked like the French gun?” “If made one I em eure; but [ improved it; I left out tha rotation part; that would not work.” Do not your honors thiok that was a very usoful pantomime ? But, since the Boston trial, the character of this gua is changed. Now we have an attempt made to prove that Whevier invented @ gua just like Coit’s, at the same time he invented this town ojock gun. Collier hus taken auothor start; ho says he forgot it at Buston, be was so much con: fused there. bishop sweurs to it now, but did not at Boston; be has recollected it since; and Fisher, a fellow who is infringing Colt’s patent in Chatham poses lee mewory for the other two to swear by. Here is the model. and let us examine the tes- timony which supports it John Fisher swears that he was eleven or twelve yours old when Collier brought hie gun from America, ab mt 33 years ago, and Was working at the irade with his father, in London; thet his father made about six of these guns for Coliier, and then Collier set up for himeolf, to make them in London; that he never saw any such guna since, but that be recollocts exactly how they were made, aud has actually made one, aad produced it hore in court Prevooigus youth, he must have been! arm; and, as my brother Kellar has shown you, the fellow had not wit enough to mako it to detach the locking bolt, so that in place of locking at the explosion, it unlocks, and conversely. Fisher says that these arms he mady for Collier—now, mark that !—sad that when Collier came to Now York Jast winter, he had forgotten all 2vout it, and nover recollected till reminded by him. Sow, turn to Collier, and see how the miserable lio is nailed by him. He says that when he first went to England, he had ouly tue Fron -h plan; and that Wheeler af terwards, and about 1820, oame out to England with this now idea; that at that timo he had set up a factory of hia own, and that he was 0 much occu- pied making tie French guos, that he would not touch this new plan Fisher says be made them for Collier before he set up for him- self. Colifor anys it was two yoars aftor taut when the pian came, aud bo nover made any at ail. | John Bishop is cailed to confirm the story; and he says tha’ bis father made cne in Boston, for Wheeler to take abroad, when he was ten years old, about thirty years einco; that be saw his father maxing it, and waa etruck by its novelty, and now recol- lects it perfeotly that the gun of Wisher ig like it. Is not this too bad !—a boy ten years old s #ear- ing to such a story, of tho invention; for the inventor JPsieigbon what he invented, different from this, both here and abroad, and patented it abroud long after this boy saq it: for ho tock the one tho boy’s fathor made abroad to ot @ peions for it; when Collier, who made what Pheer gid invent, doos not revoliect it, till this Fishor, who was twelvo years old, instracts him; | and when he—this very Bishop—swore to directly tho reverse at Boston. Isit not, Leny, too bai? Wuo is the congo! who drew those efidavits? Who has suob riches in reputation that he oan thas afford to ay xafortune of it in a sivgle cause? But, aiter all, suppose these monstrous lies all to bo holy trath, what matter? What was done was done in Nogland; what was done is not like Me. Coit s; what was done was abandonec—nas perished off tho face of the garth, and no vestige ef it loft, but oaly &@ recollection of « boy twelve yoars old If it wore ali 60, (he law assigns to it no value What makes this fenturo of the case worev than all is, that the defendants have in tacir oon the remains of the original gan made by Wheeler, and obtained from his son Artemas Wheeler, of Lowell, which confirma the patent ond demvlishes those mise r- able witnesses. That gam! have given them notice to produce, which I now reac fir--You will ploaso to tak to produ, on the further heariug of this motion, tbe remains of the ovigi- ral Wheelot gua procured for you from Artemns Wherier, of Lowell, by award 8. Goyd and wowia your possession.--New York, Friday, dent. 24 185% MDWD, N. DICKERSON, sol. of Comp't. ToSet BP Staries, Counsel of Dott, But they do not produce it; they would impose | on the court the sfidavite of these tro wretches who were respootively 10 acd 12 years old, instead of the thing tteelf, which connect lo. Mr. Btepler--We have no euch a gun, Mr. Dickersou--Waatever my brother Staples gaye in Crus; if ho denies (bat they have the remains of'suoh a gun t have nothing more to say. Does ho deny it’ , Mr. Staplos--We had such 9 thing; Mr. Colt se- duced away from our employment tis Soyd, and bo may hove taken it with him Mr. "iekorson-Thon Mr. Staples anys that Boyd took this oway? a Mr. Stapler—I said no such a Lbing; this is some more of the gentleman's pryniomimes Mr Viokerson--Now, your honora ago how it is; the counsel will not deny the porsessiun of this thing; ani they have it to my persousk knowledge ITs vit Va: ‘ | to confirm Well. your honors, here is the | to controvert the recorded fact | | The next fossil remains gr before Mr. Colt’s? Now, it is proven in this cause, by Gen. Harvoy, a witness of 4 Colt’s first gun was mude in 1831. By leeking at the judge’s charge at Boston, your honers wi see that there was no pretence then that the Smith gun had been made till after that timo; although | nearly all the witneares wore sworn at Soston w are sworn here—his father and his brother among | the tide of time about five years; they are ablo to Correct old time, and regulate the aun; | and they now ascertain that the Smith gun was mado | about 1528 or °29 The gentleman wants us to tell him when Col. Celt’s invention was first made. Lbave no doubt that if we should prove it ia 1800, they would swear the Smith gua back to 1i9, The father and brother of Smith are sworn, and they say they were mistaken in semo dates at Boston, which they since corrected. Mis- taken a yo: Noa, let us see how this itain- ed by testimony. Oné witness, named Kartman, sweais—I will not taxe time to read the affidavit, but I state traly its contentse—that this Smith worked for him at that time, ae an apprentice; that he does not kuow of his making @ gun, or having a gun then; but, for ull that, it may be true that he did have one, as he was away from bis store some- times and left Smith there alono Absurd and ridiculous as this statement seemé-—almost incredibly so—it is truth to the letter, as your houors may ese, if your curiosity can induce you to read such aty bia affidavit finds bat one prece- deut that I have ever known, and that I have no better authority fer than a newapanes The caso rans thus:—A rowdy was arraigned at the bar of a Western frontier court, charged with asdault and battery. The State culled two witnesses, who swore that they wero present, and saw the act committed. The defendant calied two witnesses, who swore that they did'nt see the act committed; whereupon his honor obarged the jury that, in criminal oases, the Rearonae was always entitled to the benefit of a oubt, and that, as the witnesses of the defendant had not seen the act done, he thought the prisoner should bo acquitted. Verdict accordingly. But admitting, for the argument, that Smita made a | gun before Colt, let us see what eort ofgun it was. ‘Lhis gun was produced at Boston, by James Warner, the agent of these defendants; and ho there testified, as ho does now, that be portueses it some years ago, for the purpose of making evidence against Colt. The counsel at Boston, however, kuew that it was of no use to show a fossil of this kind, which has no rotation works on it, unless they were able to show what the works which origin- ally existed were. To say that at a certain time a gun waa made whioh rotated by cocking, is no more than to state an abstract principle, if at the same time, you do not show how this result was produced. Stained glass is well known; but it would be an invention to discover how to s:ain it; so of avy other lostart. Tho result is not enough, if the means are not known. It may or may not have heen substantially like Colt’s. Koowing this prinoi- | ple, therefore, counsel at Boston produced, or arner did for them, some lockworks, which it was said would rotate that gun, and were similar to | those originally used for that purpose. The mo- ment I saw those works, 1 perceived that they were identical with the works used by the defendants, for which they have a patent, granted to Warner, on his oath that he invented thom; and as a conse- uence it followed that if such works were ever in the Smith gun. to Warner's knowledge, ho must have cowmitted perjary when he swore to their invention in 1551, the time he took @ patent for them. The projuction of those works at Boston was a bold experiment on my ignorance of mechanios, and it feild; for although [ make no great pretensions to skill in that depar:ment, yet it was obvious oven to my eye that the things were the same. Warner soon found out that I had discovered the fraud, and those works disappeared. When this trial was about to come on, andevery time it has been noticed, [ have regularly served written noticeson Mr Stapies to produce thore works; und how has he aaswered it? Not by an offidavit of Warnor stating that he bas Jost them— no such thing—but by a statemont of bis own to tho Court, that Warner said be had left them at Boston, on the table or in my hands. Wazner saw tho State prison before his eyee when he was called on to produce those works, ‘and they were not to be tound: nor does he now seear that he knows how that gen did work; he only says that apy one can seo bow it must have worked. was the miserable position of the other sido, when this cause went over, balf argued last week for your honors’ convenience: and T then thoyght it propor to make another attempt to have those works, or one like them, produced; so I served the following notice on Mr. Staples:— New York, Sept. 2tet Sir.—In the argument of the nbove entitled mation. on the 16th inet, you produecd a gan said to hove been | made by one Benjamin F. Smita, h you contended ¥as wrotary arm. apd similar in principle to chat patent- ed by the complainsat ; and in the deposicioas of wit nerses, called to prove that proposition, it is awora that “the particular parte of the gun ured’ to produce the” rotution, “wre apparent from tbe machinery attached to the breech. and deponent refers to the iugpestioa of the gun to show the character of the machinery and its cperation.”” but as you have not, as yet, produced any such machinery nor shown by evidence. the oporation of that which it is said originally existed in the gun, it in e ‘nt that both the court and the counsol fur complain ant are left totheir own inventive powers to supply the defeet, You wili. therefore, please to produce om the fuc- ther he-ting of this cause. ‘such machinery for rotating the sald gue as you mean to contend was originally used for that purpose.in order that the court aid the complsin- aut may be advised of your claim of precedence, As, of couree, it will require no invention to eupply this “appa- rent” part, but only the labor of a workman, [ will pay the expose of having ono employed for this purpose Your obedient sezvant, EDWD.N. DICKERSON, 8. P. Starixs, Esq., Counselor, And J confidently expected a reply. But there is no reply. The gentioman only says it is some more of lay pautomime. Where are these works? How aro they? Who has committed perjuty? Omnia pre- sumunter contra spoliatorem "Well, your houors, atter all my endeavors, I am not able to bring to your knowledge how this gun operated; and you will find that in uo affidavit is there any attempt | | made to describe the operation; ail the witnesses content themeelves with announcing tho fact that it Giu rotaio, and appealing to the skill of the court that proposition by inspection of the un. join in that appeal, and [shall show your onore, on inspection, that thia is the shallowest frand yot attempted in this case; that this gun has also beon mage up for the ocoasion, and rusted to give it the appearance of antiquity. Now, your honors will see (showing the gun to the court) that on the top strap here there is @ alot which has no office in the present organism; and that through that slot, and about the middle of it, there is a sorew hole running at right angles to tho leagth of the gun, which hole passes through the stock, aud is mounted with brass caps to protect the wood from abrasion Jt obvious that in that slot was onve that through that sccow the centro of that oock. Where are thoy Now the lock is obanged, aad another sort k oecupies its place—one in which the hammor draws back straight and strikes onend. This is obyioue from imepection, and beats the most con- yinoing evidence of fraud on its face Now look further, your honors; theee little notches on this cylinder. Wers they ever used to rotate this gun? Woy, there is not depth enough to bold the pall; they have been filed in with # small file, sad then rusted with a little domestic vinegar. Tale them away and there is nothing left about the gun to indicate that it ever had been thought to uss it as a rotary gun It is charity to James Warnor to sup pore that when he was geting up his patent he altered this gun for the enke of the experiment, and that it is now as ho left it; and in thu Iam tho more confirmed since be will not become a wiiness to describe it as it was, or to explain the absonos of the works, and aince no other witness makce that attorapt But, gontlemen say third claim. Wrong ogain end portitions. You sce that there 1s no outlet hore for the firs of the expiodiug cap; the recessos are not eut out to tho external air, ay in Colt’s and the defendant’s; the consequence of which is, thu whon the cap oxplodes the fire reflects egatost the reooil the cock of this gun, and helo recved, and will ignite the next oap. This ix inevi- tuble, for the shield covers three caps at once; the middie ono is fired by the discharge, and tha othor two will likely go a5 the same time, to the great ia- convenienve of your band, if you happen to have it before the cylinder, supporting the barre! So much for that This cylinder 16 not locked and unlocked wt etl; it is atways hold by a friction roller, and van he moved at suy time by hand, or otherwise. Quiescat in pace Next comes the Collier gun, in the order of tosti- wong The gentleawn bas prodaced a model of it | from Washington, bat that model has been shown to bave been sent there for the purpose of evidence in another causs withimthe Jast three years I wiil, re, go be ‘0 first prinsiples. Here is the © origina! sin, » vory one which was made a forthe Boston trie’, by the cefeodants thore, ‘aad rupted with on!phurio acid and browniog, to mako it ok old. It bas beon produced here, under the presevre of my notice, by the defendants, most re- | luctenthy, av s been Secoupanied by tho affida- | vit of 2: W. Curtor, of Springfield, to suow that be did not rust the gun, nor kaow of tho trick tul aftor it was done. tioment to expose his oondust. Look at bis afldsvit nor know of it sill done; but Le does not any that inpagent men on the atend, actiole, ond with it decolved them to awe woe fal He keene clear from ssyi about that; and the feos waa, that he, knowing this fravd, thooeh perhape not committing it in Che 'Arat | Rees mecelnprd Wy bane mar ange A iby by cuadigh | Ny wmved evened ve 28 Denne Ake yal onic, This | gun is fateliousinour | Look st these cones | sitetd or breech, and is directed right into tho next | brought ase bar te Col. | the gun as evidence, and patent isthe Smith gun. The first question | innocent mon te swear to ho; i tease eipaly cy fan is ono of prierity. “Was it | men are satisfied at this exhibition of tr: jarter, ¢ dofemiants, that | gun; and it ise benutifu! contrivance Tho o; | them. But now these gentlemen have rolled back | is no means of ascertaining that except by expori- ! | egrees with our cave: T have not atteoked Me Carter, | said. sbali be accom nor should have thought of turning out of my track | thejudgeof probate;” and alec, thet ‘the said courts, to rend bim, and there wea no occasion to produce | previous to their passing on the seid representation, this afidevit ; but since gentlomen have draggod | bull orde Mr. Carter into this arena, I will just digress 4 | He admits tho alteration, bat says he did not do it, | ignorant and “Newt end I wil! return to tho case. Hore is the Collier o pera tion of it is fourfold. First, you draw the bolt with your left hand—thus; then you pull the back trigger with your right—thus ; then you release tho bolt by your left haud—thus ; and, finally, you take bold of the oylinder aud turn it by hand, to ascer- tain whether it is or is not looked in place, as there ment. ‘What a convaynient thing tnis is,” says Pat, when ho snuffed the candle with his fingers, end put the charred wick into the box of a pair of | enufers. Soisthis gun. This gun hasno locki and unlocking, but by a hand bolt, and no caps al ail, and of course, dos not touch the second or third | claims of the patent in any view of it. Bus, what- over it might have beed, it was not made till 1833, and Mr. Colt’s was two yours befure it, at least ; aud when it was made it failed, and was abandoned. This is the lust of the fossils now exhibited hera ; and each one bas its own answer in itself, Bosidos all that, there is another answor whieh is couclusive | in thie Court ; ali these were before the jury, aud | all the witnesses who have proved them now, were then sworn, and the jury found Mr. Colt to be the | first inventor But these gentlowen are hard to suit. We have tried our caure to the jury, and come hear with a verdict, and they say vay, but try itagain. When we como into equity they say go to law; when wo beat them at law, they say go aud try again. Gentle- men now argue that they rhould have a jary trial before injunction ; and he insists on it with great | confidence that these abandoned experiments are fatal to Mr Colt’s cage, Tam astovished at thas gentleman. I sm surprised that he, who has spent £0 tong and 60 bovormble @ life, in maintaiaing the great principles on which the rights of inventors stand, rhould now be found, in one single cause, ro- pudiating thom #!l, and contending for their very reverse. [never yot have been placed in the posi- tion to advocate one day what I denounced the day before, and [do not intend ever to be s0 placed. [ capnot, therefore, imagine the feelings which such asituation would ercite; but whatever they are, the course] on the ethor side now must exporienve them. This very week he and I went to Trenton to receive a judgment in our favor on these very pria- ; ciples, and bud it too, in the great case of Goodyear and Day. in which we contended for tho equity power of the Court, and had to combat any quan- tity of such evidence as this—evidenoe of abandoned experiments and failures set up torob the inventor | of Win just reward. That decision could be applied | to this case with but little alteration in its terms, | and nono in its principles ; and that decision will | carry with it tho weight of authority from this time forth forever Having thus ga 8 quietus to the questions of fact in this case, I will address myself to the question of law Ia the patent of Col Colt well extended? I tke three points on that question. First, the certificate of extension, being the recorded judgment of the court autborized by law to make it, is couclusive, and cannot be inquired into invideatally, except for actual fraud. Second, even if it be not conclusive, et it is at least prima facie, and the defendants ave shown uo evidence which impairs its effect. Third, even take all that is said by tho defendants | to bave happened, in procuring the extension, to be true, and yet the proceeding was legal, and tho patent well extended. First, tho certificate is conclusive. It is the judg- ment of a court. This is decided by this court in Wilson and Rousseau (1 Blatchford 23), and that cage went to Washington ard wasaffirmed. In that case your honors say that the board isa court, hear- ing and deciding with the latitude of jadicinl dis cretion. But the learned counsel says, that al- though this be true, yet that, sg this is a court of limited juridiotion, its jurisdiction is not to be con- clusively presumed from its jadgment, unless the foots giving such jurisdiction sppear on the face of the record What a strange conclusion is this to drew fiom the principle that the maxim, oming presumunter rite ct solenniter esse acta, doos not ap- ply to give jurisdiction; and [ am not a bittie sur- prised to ace that some courts have drawn tho same deduction. I conceive this to be utter nunsense. f | will admit the true pricciple, which is much more | favorable to tho defendants than the one they have | thus stated It is this: that the jurisdiction of courts of limited jurisdiction is not io be presumed fiom the judgment rendered by them at al; bat | must be shown, if denied by proper evidence, aliumde by matter, dehors the record If this were not so | the court might usurp a jurisdiction over the subjeot | on which it acted, by merely snaking @ false staso- | ment of facts on the recera, or by claitaing it in their judgment, und thus take advantage of their own | wrovg Now, J conceive that if avy facts are pro- | cedent to jurisdiction, they must be proved alrumde, wheihir they appear recited on the record or not The facta must exist; the statement that they do ox- iat is notenough. Of course, bowever, the rooical | of facts under seal, sufficient to give jurisdiction, prima facie evidence of tho trath of such tacts; and the mere denial by the defendant that they ex- isted will not be encugh to throw tho burden of proof on the plaintiff Wich this concession of prin- ciplo, let us examine the nature of the coart under whose judgment we oluim tiie I shall treats tho legal entity—that powor or suthority which exists | in the contemplation of iaw—without at present con- | tidering the individuals who may be appointed to | exercise its fupetions. The court exists aed is created hy the sighteenth section of the act of 1836 | une to that statute we must go fer a deficition of the | powers and juriediction of thet court. There ia the starting poin'—dchors, tho record of judgiaent. Che eighteenth section delares. that whenever any paten- tee shail desire an extension of his patent, ho may | make application in writing to the Commissioner of Patents, vetting fortb the grounds thereof, and tho Beoretary of State, Commissioner of Putouts, and | Solicitor of the Treasury, shall constitute a board to hear and decide upon the evidence. Ail that the | law requises to give that board or court jarisdio tion, is, that thorechould be a patentee and « pateat, and that there should be an application made by | the patentee for an extension; thereupon, that court | shall heer and decide upon the evidences offered | Now, these facts all appoar here—the patenteo and the application for extension of the putent. Upon | these facts the court might proceed, with the lati- | tude of judicial discretion, to pronounce ita judg- | ment; and ali its acts in that proceeding would be the exercise of jurisdiction, not acts precedont to | jurisdiction Jurisdiction is tho power to hear and determine a cause; that power this statute has con- | ferred on this court in very comprehonsive terms. | But there intorveno, in the eighteenth section, b: tween tho first sentence and tho sentence creasing | the court, directions to the Commissioner, gua com- | missionor, to perform certain ministerial acts—to ad- | vertise and the like. Now, I agree with counsel | that these acts are purely ministerial, and that they | are not tho less so because the person who is entrust- | od to perform thom is afterwards a judge on the bench to decide on their sufficiency when porformed; but Ido not agree that each sets must be per. formed before she jurisdiction ef tho court artsos over the subject mutter That point is sottlod by a case which runs op all fours with this case, and which is found in 2 How Grignon vs. the Losses of | Astor That is a much stronger case than this ono, and eminentiy contuims it Lt wes rather entertain- ing to seo counsel deal with that oase. There it isy right in the path, and there was no pro- ressing ® step further till it was removed. Wen, my brother Staples marched up to it with great courngo, and it seemed as if he would domo lish it at ovco 1 began to tromble for my ease; when behold, he slipped quictly around it, and we | find bim on the other side. All he did with it was | te reed ono paragraph, which is a most harmless | elementary definition of the distinction between courts whose judgments are covelusiva and those | whose judgmente sre not. He did not even attempt to epply that hern-book knowledge fo this cave; for if 6 had, he would have found that this court | comer within the former category. The distinotioa in laid down to be, that whou tbe court is #0 consti- tuted that youmay look through its proceedin forthe facts on which its jadgment ia founded, then ifs judgment is not conclusive; otherwise, whore you muy not vo look chrough ite procesdiags | Ix which clase, L ask, is the court of the patent of- foe. It has alweys been decided that tho courts eould not look through its poovedin gs, aad that its judgment on grants. reissues, avd the like, are | solunve, except for fraud, which vitiates nny judg- | went of any court Why did not the learaed counsel | Because it is porfectty Jogk ferther inte the ewse 7 fatal to this defence Twill now opon the book and | turn to the °20:h pago There 1 the acetate of Micbigen, conterring the power ca the court whose | judgment came up tor examination to Washington. Lt | ‘Was & county court, nud the power conferred was to order the sale of the lands of an intestate. Now, reod the first section of the statute which gives ju | riediction diines the cage in whieh the court sha)! act--when e person anall dio leaving real es- tate ond not enough personal oetate to pay his Gebts, which fact shall be represontet to the court | Death, insuflivioncy of personal estate, real esvate, | and reprosontation ofeho fact. See, now, how this | A pacent about to axpire, a patentoe, and representation of the ficts, praying | ep extension. Tu the reported case, however, is is | provided, in the emme section, that ‘* before sale © made” the exeevtor euell givo irty days pub- Nic votice;”” and it isalse provided, by the ¢bird keo- tion, that “every representation to be made as afore- panied with ® certitioate from eon r due notice to be given.” & Now this | is muob nger than one cage ne eighteenth reo of the patent law, the dirootion to tha minis terial officer to advertise is separste from tho juris diction olnuse; and thore is no provision, tnat previ- | whoa he kaow of it be plaved it into tho hands of | ous to aotion of the court anon notice stall bo given, | to ewerr to naa genuine | aa there isin this case. There igin this caso somo to what | y ing anything | tho act, for the argament that waa macs in it, thas round, arising out of the peculiar phraseology of no juriadiatiow ever arose ever the subject matuor \ nntil afiox each previons notion had heen given - jade. . | fatal to this title | ple of the law is. that the certifivate of An offiver a3 | to sny matter which the law requires him to record, | only part of the proceedings which can be made evi | quires it to be recorded, and make | giving this paper the weight of evidence, by offering tole eects of itgnn, Peal Grignon, odmiaistroter tor of Pierre G: deooased, fe ob- tained an order (0 salo of pop perp te |. Ap aotion was afterwards brought‘by the heirs at law of the deceased ogaines the asers under that sale, and the validity of tho title of the was called in question, because the court ordered the sale without the cortifcate of the judge, and without the duo notice givea which the law required to be given ‘*previous” to thoir ac- tien. The question camo up in this shape to Wash- ington, and Judge Beldwin delivered the opinion of the court. presentation of the administrator, the law presumos that it was accompanied by the cortificate of the judge of probate, as that wasa requisite to tho ao- | ‘tion of the court; their orderof sale is evidence of that, or any fact that was necossary to give them power to make it; aud the same remark upplies to the order to give notice to the parties ** * record i# «xbsolute verity, to contradict which there can be 10 averment or evidence; the court having power to make the decree, it can be impeached only by fraud in the party who obtains it’ Aud on page 315, tho court adds—‘*We do not doom it necessary, Low or hereafter, to retrace the reasons orthe authorities on which the decision of this court in that or tho causes which preceded it rest- ed, they are founded on the oldest wad moat sacred principles of the common law. Time has consoorated them; the courts of the States have followed them; and this court bas aever departed from thom. Thoy are the rulos of property oa which the repose of the country deperde; titles acquired under the procecd- ings of courts of competent juristiction must bo deemed invielavle in coliateral uction, or none can kvow what is bis owa.” is case is conclusive ov. ours. We come here with the record of the court whose jurisdiction over the subject matter is appa- rent on the face of the statute. We produce the only evidence which tho law requires to bo kept of the government of that court, viz , tho certificate of | extension ; and it is ‘absolute verity, to coutradict whiob there can be no cvidence or averment.” Thus fur I have troated this court, in the abstract, asa legal entity. Iwill now glanoe & moment ut the persons who wield its powers. Tho statute of 1836, which creates this court, appoints three por- sons as its judges—the Seorctary of State, tho Cum- missioner of Patents, and the Solicitor of the trow sury. The statute of 1818 enacts, that “the power to extend patents, now vested in tho board com- fore of the Secretary of State, Commissionor of ‘atents, and Solicitor of the Treasury, shall hore- after be vested solely in the Commissioner of Pa- tenta;” and it further provides that the said Com- missioner aball exercise that power “upon the samo inciples and rules that have goveraes tho said ard.” The statute of “48 doves not attempt to alter or affect the jurisdiction or the power of the ecurt in any degree; it only changes ‘he numbor of judges; and, in oxpress terms, perpetuates tho juris- diction, and commands the new judgo not to depart from its ancient limits. It is obvious, therefore, that the argument I have made as applicable to the court, created by the Ith section, 18 equally appli- cable to it as modified by tho luw of '48; and chat ' our certificate of extension, granted under tho law of 48, by the single a whole world, except for things. But gentlemen ask, will this court permit the Com- missioner to do as he pleases? will thoy not reviso bis decisions, and correct his erro:s? Horo is the fal Jacy of this whole argument. No doubt, your honora are much hetter judges of questions, oither of law or fact, than the Commissiouer of Patents is likely to be; but it docs not tollow out of those premises that this court will examine and correet his juig ments. It might be a very good reason why Con- gress should confer such a« power on this court; but 1t is mo reason why this court should assume such a power unless it 1s first conforred Tho law makes the Commirsioner soo and final judge of the court over which he presides, and allows ao appeai to this or awy other court; therefore, neither this por any otber court will attempt to exorcise such an appol- Tate jurisdiction. On this point J shall ask this court to decide this case; not because either of thy other two points is vot equally good for this pliin- tiff, but because this is a great principle which may be vital to many other titles im which the patenteo way not be so able to eniure a sorutiny into the acté of the Commissioner as Mr Cols is. How many cases are there in which these unrecorded procved- 6, is conclusive on tho fraud, which vitiatos all | ings cannot be proved oxcept by the fianl judg- ment? Second point—But admit, for the enke of tho ar- gument, that the jucgment of the court is not con- clusive, but only prima fucte evidexce of the title ; yet the onus yrobandt is thrown upon the defen Gants; and they must show affirmatively tuat tho requirements of the Jaw have not been co.mpliod with. Tbia, I contend, thoy have signally failed to do. The denial of the answer, made on inforuation and belief, that the proper steps wero not taken, ts micre idle breath, unless supported by evideroo; and there is ne evidence produced here to support that answer. Tho defendants rely upon a paper fron the Patent Office, under seal, woich thoy call a ro- cord, to show the omissions which they contend are That is no record” Tuo princi shall be evidence; but that his cortificato, as vo any mutter be isxot bound to record, has no moro woigut than the statement of a private pereon. Seo Grovn- leaf, 1 vol , seo 498. Te is, therefore, important to irquire what of the procoedings of the court, ia cures of extension, the statute requires to be vo corded; and your honors will sos, by readiog tho eighteenth section of the act, that none of thove proceedings are required to be recorded, the fleal deereo only excepted. The final docreo, t that is, the judgment ander which we claim, 13 the dence by being certified uader soal. All the rest is a mere statement of a person, not under oath, and who was not the actor in the affuir at the timo it happened; who, therefore, knows nothing of the truth or falsity of the mattor to which bo certifies. But suppose it be true that this certificate is evi dence. what is the certificate? It ia only that tho “within are truo copies of certain letters,’ &9., in the matter of Celt's application It does not pro- tend to state that this is all that occurred in that matrer; but ouly that these things did occur You call on tho Patent Office for copies of such things as you want; and they send you only what you call fyr. It does not follow that because the copies yeu call for do not show that certain things wec done, thet, therefore, thoy wero not done Itthe certidcate of the commissioner is evidence of whatever be chooses to incorporate in a certificate, they ought to have procured a certificate that those thinge which they say were omitted did not occur; not # certificate that certain other things did ocsar; which may ail be true, and yet everything which they deny may have happened. Tut the goutleman says that the fourth seotion of the act of 1836 males this certificate evidence. Wrong again. That seo- tion provides that the certificate shall be evidense whenever tho originals would be evidence. Ofcourse | it will not be pretended that the original slips of paper, on which theee minutes were kept, would bo evidence. They are little fly loaves on the table of the clork in the office, on which, for the convenienco of the court, rainu‘es are mado of tho events which i ch, when they have served choir purp re thrown aside. They are not recorded nor does the law require they should be. If they would not be evidence, what becomes of the certificate? There is one part of tho certified pro ceedings which is evedence, because the lnw ro it so—and that is the final decree, the title on which wo stand. T was much aimused by the attempt the gen- proce:dings behind a certain point, which point ho thonght was just far enough to destroy my cuse eod seve bis, He anponnced that he should read no more of his record than the order of the cominis- On page 340, the court lays dowa tho | doctrine—‘‘After tho court has passed on tho re- | sdjocromants of i, Bolore toe supiee ments it. Before the exp tion of the last adjournment, the law of 1548 was passed to which I have already referred, and whish provided “that the power to extend patents,” then | vested in the board, should be theresfter *‘vested the court took the case two or three solely in the Commissioner of Patents.” What was | tho effect of that act 1—thac is the question. men say it abolished the court and destroyed all the pending cases. ‘Tais i deny. My brother tia mot admitted that it did not repoal tho 15th seo- tion; but then he anid that it oagnt to be construed just ag ifit did lor what ond; who is to be bene- ed? What policy of the law is to be subsorved? No, your honors, it only operated to reduce the aum- Der of judges who gat on the bench from thros to one cis oxactly asif a law should be passed do- claring that the powor to hear and determing causes now vested in their honors Judges Nelson and fetts, | should hereafter be vested suiely in Judge But Under such a law would any one think chat the | cases pending before th's court foil out of court and | ad to be commenced anew? | suppose not; and yet | ibat ia thiscave. What las the single jadge con- ferred on him by the act! Tho power to extend pa- tents; all the power that the old board had; the power to extend, as well those cases which are pond- ing, @3 those which might arico therealter. Loo next claueo of the sentence ia the statuce of “AS iv directory to the Commissioner, ag a ministerial oili cer; it enacts that “whon an application for oxten- sion is made to him acsording 10 tho awid 15th seo- tion, and sixty duys notice thereof given,” &v , be shall proceed to decide the case Now this is an amenoment of an analagous provision of the lth seo: | tion,and doesnot touch the question of juriadioti on; it | ovly alte toe time of advertisement trom an iaded- | nite to adefinite time lc does not apply to pond. | ing vases which have already been advertised, acd over which the Commissioner had obtained jurisdiction But this point is setiled in this very | pease The case of Colt vs the Massachusetts Arms ‘owpany, in which the argumeot for the defence was wade under leave of toe Court, first asked, wad granted by three counsel—Mr Staples, Me. Choate, and Mr. Chapman—each of whom was supposed, | by the very fact of the extraordinary re- quest for three counsel, to possess some vir- tue or excellence for this class of quostions whick rendered him peculiarly fit to argue his division of it, and in which Judge Sprague, of Boston, delivered a judgmont, was decided ia our favor, and an injenction granted Judge Sorague’s opinion T read from, and he thus expre: the views of the Cireuit Court of the United States in Massachu- Betta:--" the court would be very slow to give a con: | struction,” that is, that the pending case foll by | the pesrage of the aos of “IN, “which would work such injustice, cnd would only adopt it upon clear and unequivocal language, which would make suoh ® coustruction unavoiable, The language of tho act does not require such,a ocnstruction. Its natural meaning is, that the Commissioner is to exercise the same power that would have boon oxersised by the bosrd if tho act had not been passod The powers formerly vested in the board are by the very terms of the act now vested in the Commissioner, and he, therefore, suceseds to the board, just a3 a new Se matany of State and other members of the hoard would have sucoeeded to the old members on they Cunk out of offise, if this act had not beon paseed. I am of opinion, therefore, that it was competent to the Comimissionor to take up the old cnses, pending before tho board, snd to act upon them in the state in which thoy wore, a3 the board would have acted. * * * Wor these reasons, I think, an injunction must issue.” But gendemen say tbat the Commissionor tcok up this case and decided it before the time to whioh it | stood adjourpved What ofthat? Duo notice had | been given to all the world to appear ani show | caure why it should not be extended; no one did | appear, and the law gives the world no otherday | | to appear than the day assigned by the statute No ove appearing to oppose, the court atjouraed | the hoaring for the mucual convenivuce o m.- solves avd the only party who was before them; and when it was mutually convenieot they could take it up and act on it. No other person was interested | in the result except the potitiouer ; the whole world | bad signified their assent to tne oxtension by stay- | ing away and walking no opposition, and the Com. | ner ix charged with tho cure of the govern- | i t Ibis just like a bavkrupt’s discharge; the potice is given that on a certain day ha will be | Cischarged by tho court, unless good couse isshown | tothe contrary. No one appears to oppore, and the | dey given to creditors ie paseed. Cho court, how- vver, for itsown satisfaction, instructs the petitioner to furnish certain other proof no: yot furnished, and adjourvs tbe bearing for that purposs to a fature day. Sooner than the day fixed, the proof comes in. Would it not bo competent for the court, being then satisfied, to take up the oaee? Undoubtedly it would; and no other court coutd inquire into that exercise Of juzistiction, and reject that discharge as ineufficieat J now turn for one moment to the next question | hero. Was thore a verdict and judgment oa this | suient? Hore is the record which settles that point. jut gentiencr aasnil that verdict, nod atvemp to discredit that judgmont by evidence A it may seom, itis even so; and this smith, Bishop, and this groat * bill ¢ Hervey, who sat here in court during the moat of 8 argument, are the instraments tv do it with. twear thet tha Circuit Court of tho United Siates ot Boston decided contrary to low; that they rwed out evidence which ought io b have been ad- that demanded in the complaint, (which use, Lowever, is comprohensive enough,) yes, ny other case, the court, by the express veras the Code (Sec 2 5) may grant the plaiatiffs eay relief consistent with the caso made by the oom- Plait, and ewbracod within the issue. There is obvioutly but one causa of action—the frauduleat obtaining of the plaintiti’s stook under the pretenee of a cash purchase. The dewurror must, therefore, be overruled, with costa—defendant, to have to answer over spain on payment of costs, unless plaintiffs elect totake judgment for the pri and interest ¢pecified in their complaint as wy contract, reserving the question of fraud to be pored of on application for execution against the rson of the defendant, should such an “pplication come necessary Court of General Sessions, Before the Jtecorder and Aldermen Moore aad Were. SRNTRNORA, Ocroura 16.—Patrick Campbetl, convicted of « robbery on board ® canal boat, at the dock, and whose trial was reported im Kriday’s Hana.o, being aa old offender, was sentonced to fire years imprisonment, John Powell, who pleaded guilty of am assault and bet- tery op bis wife, was sentenced to twelve moaths iapr- eonment in the penitentiary, This case presented a6 @ serious aspect, end the prisoner was indicted for mage riwughter, the uofertuonte women having died eubas quent to the sssault by him. Ou the post mortem exe aurnation. the doctor was uaable to say whether deade Was courted by the assault ood battery. or by the burstimg of wtumor “Under these ciroamstanoes, the above plea tod onse i F was nocepted of use) Vue BUA TAPLNO—ALLEGED NUIMANCK—“AN mite THKTAINING * HORNE CAgR.” The cave of Amos Chamberlain, the owner of the Bull's Head stables, betwcen Twenty-fourth and Twenty Hitt streets, and the Third and Lexington avesuss, was calied up this morning ‘These stables are well knowm ag livery and sale stables and tho prosemt indictment wae cue for a vuiranes. in causing an obstruction by raaning horses up avd down in Twenty fifth treet. botween the above pawed avenues, to the davger of pasuers by. Ms. Mr. Richord Busteed, for the aetendant. moved ia imine, to quash the indictment. as the offence as desocibed, was ove ugainst @ city ordiaance, which imposed a fine fer each offence, but did not constitute it a misdemesnor, ‘The court held that the ordinance did not abrogate the cemmon law. under which this iodiotment was framod, if 1. proved to bea pubiio nuisance, It was, therefere, vroposed to bring (he cause to trial at once, the dofead- out being prepared with several witnesses, aad Mr. Hole coprenting, briefly opened the caso. He then called the following witnesses :— Willinma Mook, butcher, 'Tweuty-fifth street, new Lexington aventie. aworn—His premises mostly adjoined. those of the defendant who kept a cale and livery 4 could not say bow many horses were usually theres i | Fupposes never lea than @ handred. (I(t was here ad- mitted that Mr Chamberlain was tho proprictor of the premises ) Horses being kept on sale are brought eas and their qualities tried by racing up aed dowa im ‘Twenty-fithistreet betwoon Third avenue and Lexiagtom, either rumpipg or trotting; not more than one or twe eta time; the average speed is three anda balf or (owe miles an hour, he pever knew the atreet to be 0 crowd ed ae (0 incomaiods ‘he public or hima; never was tm any danger bimrelf; bad seen property damaged snd chiloren’s Lives endangered in that strect, but could met tay the horse came from thove stablos Cross examined—Nover recollected seeing Mr. Chem- berlain riding himself; Twenty fourth street, betwoom ‘Third avcaue und Lexington avenue is composed of ate- bles. but this is tke only one in Cwonty- fifth atreet; the opposite side of the block is occupied by Nunas en@ Clurks’s piano factory and vacant land; on refleotion. there is anether stable there; thought there had been @ sale where Mr Chamberlain now kept, for fall twelve The house witners resided im now was the last tweive mon'hs; the stable went through: from Twenty fourih to Twenty. fifth street; he had lived thoto jor filteep years. and never know any aocidemt te have ocevired frrm bores there ry Miller, (of the Register's office ) sworn)—= (This gentleman gave his evidence ia a way whieh caused great laughter} tie bad seen horses raced up and dowa to show their speed; there was but one at a time; m0; | went at full speed; bad mever kuown of an accident. | bed beard of some; he was seldom at home. knew of thale 1k; they tore up his treo; bed comp'nin of it of & horse depended om 1 the peigabors g ross examined—The how fast he could go (laughter, he could not go so fast non fi could go at ter was that ‘ore d | WM Adams's; he was told It was done by 8 horse: did ast wg of it of hix own knowledge. ook sworn—Hled never seen ® horse drives ately; never caw the street obsbructed. Hao lived in the neighborh od uwen- know anyt Thom or ridden im Cros ex! nined Twenty fourth street, between those avenue, i kup to stubles; there are very few dwelling in Uwenry-fifth street; he thougkt four, Henry 8. Vanderpooi—Rerided in the im mediate neigh- borbood ; called git @ nuisance ia its worst form and bape; the sidetalks were impassable hulf the time, fe tpoke of botb sidewalks in Twenty. Sfh strevt, which was caured by giving two horses to a little boy who could 06 monrce them—a boy not reven years old—and he rode them on the sidewalk as well as on the road; they eome from the Bull's Head stables; dia mot think enything of the crowd, the street wos obstructed but it wad primel- pally on the sidewalk; it was in May last, and in every month aud overy day and forly times a day. all che ime since he bad lived there, now three years aad » half. Cross examined--Was in the mihogany and varetels burtness; his workwhop was in Cherry ateret. down towmy and he had # fectory in Koat Twenty fest atrect. betweem the riser and Hort avenue; went out in the morning Gown town af about eight o'clook, and retureed pefese dvsk—nbout bait past tive or six; he lived there three yeers, and the stables were in existeace when he fire went there; thir was both a public and private nui-an we; kuew the difference between them. but not the differenm in daw; bus been up there frequendy im the middle of the Ony end seen them. aud they trotted as much mitted. This is a now feature in tuo patent law | just before dark my then; could mot im new practice. We have heard of exports im tavohanios | the d come out without going on the side | and physics, but I dare say no ong ever hoard be- | Walk; but had sven them come out +o quickly they herefore, | | Teould not conocive what this ( | court for ope, be can come there aud inform that sioner, which recites that, “upon the potitionof Wr. | Coit, setting forth rensons for immediate action on his aid application,” bye had ordered the extension Thereupon my brother Catting, who saw the pre- aivament in which bis colisegue was placing his case, wes kind enough to call my attention o it, just for my sake, in order that I might if t pecesed put in evidence the other procsediags. I did oo such a thing I *as not to be drawn inso ita such myself. The truth is, the gentleman had first cut off bis own tail by thie vory ingeaions con- trivance, of reading only @ part of tho record, an my brother Cutting held open the trap for me to put mino in alo §=Why, your honors, the only enee they pretend to have here is, that this record, anterior to the order at whish they proposy to stop, shows the omirsiona whioh they sav are fatal to us They beve not offored. nor pretended to offer, any other proof of such omissions; aad if you airike this ping Proof out, whero ia thoir cus!” Aveordiog the: own showing, it then stands thus:—fost at a rtain day the Commissioner ordored that, upon “said application,” the patent enoul he extended: api twas. Of course, the presumption must he, uo der ney viow of the law, that the “said application” was regular, apd that ail things were dono that ought to have been done, unfil the contrary is shown; that is the certificate is at loaet pramea facie evidence of proprioty;'and the gentleman vory qui- ovty jocks hunself out of the only proof which the case contaiag, with whioh he can avail that prima facie ov dence, by declaring that he will nor go imo oxomination of any former prooecdings If I should ray, “Well, I rest there, too,” their corse is de- strojod by their own hands But I will nos take this advantage of the counsel; I will ai'ow him to extricate bimeolf from the trap he sot for mo, and | will go into he third point of the once. ‘Third point—Admitting «Il that tho doferdeate bave to be true, tho patent is woll oxtonded. Tho ease, 64 mete by this ¢ from the Patent five, is tuis—Mr Colt, during the exietence of colt board. applied for an extonsion according to low; the odvertivemonts were duly made, ia- viting sll poreonn interested adversely to ap peer and ehow cava, if any thoy had, why the extention rhowld not be ranted; oP person appear wha cle ine walk pute dvbigiiawd by tae Bondey i ) your honors most decide that Colonol Uolt ie en- tloman made to cut me off from goiug into tho | i fore of nn expert in law, whose duty and office it is | to Fit in court, and decide on its decisions— ‘To exatch from his hand the balance and the rod, Rejudge his justice—he the god of ral Harvey was | doing hero, sitting so close wader ihe bonoh during this argument; but now { perceive that it was to supervise your honora, so that when you have granted an injunction, and we move in another oourt of your honors’ errors. Lot us look, first, into tho bill of exceptions, and see whether Mr, Choate excepted to any such ruling Well, he did pot; and thcre is nothing in the record to show that any such ruling was made. Of course, if there were such @ ruling, it would reverse the judgment, if excepted to; but, by some fatality, poor Mr. Choste seems to have missod it, and it was reserved for Geveral Harvey to discover it Now, look into tbo statemen: ot the General, and seo what this point was. Ho saya that, attor Colt had proved bis invention to have been made as early as 1331, the defendants offered evidence to robut it, and thoir ofier was re; Of course they had the evi- douce to disprove the fact that the invention was muce in “81; aod it certainly is very important to thcve defendants now to show that it was not thon mace. Where is that evidence? No single witness is called for that purpose, except Lazeile, who swears that be knew Coit trom July to Ociober of that year, and he did pot kuow ot his msking aay gun daring these three montis ‘That is ali the atteupt to disprove it now, after a year has elapsed wl bas been passed in rakiog the country over for dence. Compare Lazeile with tan, and £66 bow the same sort of stuff is used for opposite ends. After such a complaint as this, that the court did them injustice ie this metter, we might have rea- sovably expected some better show of & cause for complaint than this Tho fact is, that no sach offer was made in Boston But | have already takon up more of your honors’ time, in commer on such trazh | as this, then 1 ought hank your honers for the consideration sad attention # me in this cause: and, with en | titled to whatover of reward the world is willing to give bin for is great and vaiaable invention, with- out being robbed either of its henor or its proiit, £ submit his case to your decision. | them unl seercely touched; the boys rode them qere “ little loafers” Q.—Do you know who they wore? A — No Ldon't know “em (—Hiow do you kuow they wore “loaters.” thon? A re & peir of breeches bare-footed and bai (Laughter ) ig else? A--No: cient Witness continued Did not know wiere they enme from. or where they Went to; the horses came from @)] the stables in Twenty-fourth aud Twenty -tifth si can’t woh partienlarly; did not know Mr Cham berlain, never «aw him «ith (he boraes. (Mr Chambers Iain here stood up and witness said he had newer seem him before) They rode the horses beyond Loxingtow avenue, and came down the corner flying, in ” of two ond three; had seen a dozem boys with a dose or twenty borses; some with two horses; they were ell under (welve or thittesu yenry old; be jadged thelr age by their‘ phis; ° had sven six or eight of them standing abow!, be was uot talkiog of soy particular static, bed novbing mere to toil the jury, but would like to convince them it was a unisance (Laughter) Had a bore of bis on and had a boy to hold bim some times; they were ali little ~ahavers? He examined thele “phia” Q.—Did you examine their teeth? (Load Invghter.) A—It was not necessary; I could see thele teeth when they got the money; (laughter) he bad heerd women ecream, but eeidom went to their asuie- tenes. as he know they were ‘ more frigutened thae hurt; (loud Isughter) never saw sa acctdcat attended lorsof life or Limb; horses bad tried to get into bis wim dow pretty hard; ho should say twenty horses. (Leagh- ter) Q—In the fiest or second story’ 4.—On the dat floor, Q.—Did they ever try the basement? A —No the iron fence stopped that () —Can you say whether these horsee came out of the B: Head stables? A know the Balls Head stables; I meen all the stables ia ‘Twenty-fitth streot, thoagh I believe there are but twos there may be three or four. No other witnesses being in attendance, the case tor the prcrecution closed here. Mr Bustred submitted there was no case, bat the Court thought with Mr Hail. there was sufiiciont to ge to the jury ander their direction, He therefore oalled— Officer Hulurrs. of the Eighteenth ward, who thero was no obstruction caured by the defendeat’s ® ; that the persons who drove tact horses on the Toird avenue were in the habit of coming roun’ thers, end showing them off andthe Bull's Head stables betag tho Inat, shad to take it all.’ Ie had never teen am soni- at there: ye did ride the horses. hut cou'd manage sometimes on unruly horse. John Pitcher, another oflicer gave similar ton #5 did Other persous who had stabied theit horses the defendant avd ove plysician residing in the meigh- « ae - goats | borhood It was merely cumulative, amd need not be Supreme Court-Spectal Term, | "Ee cms was submitted ander the change of the court, Decision by Hon. Juaze Roosevelt, und the Recorder briefly stated the haw, poluting IMPORTANT TO STOOK JOP WALL STE kat consti uted « public mul OPLK. tho mein feavares of the te Oor, is —-Wm WwW nd another ed iu their seats ere they returned a | Tompkins ~ The plaintifis ask aa altorpative judy- | ity.” then adjourned until this day ( Satur | ment ogoiwet the defeudant, for tae sain of $12,- | Cay) et twelve ovolocs. and the jury were discharged 59, for cortnin stooks n'leged to have beon frnudu- | Mtl Monday morning. As, Jontly obteined from them, under = color of pur- | ates Macshal’s Offiee, chaee, or that the detendant may be deoreed to ro- | nts for cruel sod uousmel | do transtor the stocks, and pay such Gemages as may havo been sustaincd by menne of the tracd, or for | such othor reliof ae the court may deem proper, | with costs. In this complaint, toe defendant bas | filed a demurrer, it & that it sets up two dis- | tinct and incongruous causes of setion—tne ono uf- firming nod the other reecivding the salo—the one founded on coutract, the othe: (Gi 142, sub 3 » 167, ub 1-6; t tlow Pr 423; 3 297 $ Cooe,R M1) Some portiensof the complaint, whieh go into a variety of minute detetls to prove the alleged fraudulent intention, may. per- bape, although that is not by acy means olvar, be chargeabio with the character of surplusage if they mre, tho remedy under the Code, was by furomary motion to hethemout. See 1H, Bat the complaint in subs contaios batvone owuss of action—it relates wholly to and the same trans setion, oxbibited in vartous lights, but still the samo. Under the old chancory aystora, it would beve beea called by the famitinr namo of a bill with « double aepect, Which, in proper cases, wes always ailoasole, and with its namo only coanged aud some formal parts stricken out, isso etill. Should it turu out, i franda- on taking the testimony. that the siock w lewtly purchased, ant coat it still romeios under the defendants coutrol, the plaintills woald be entitled to a deoree for its restoration specitioally, with dama. Koa and Costa Thai is one aapect of their complaint | On the other hand, should tho alleged fread not | bo ublished, or, being established, should the equently have boon sold to avother pur- in good fait, the plaintiffs must be content | with a judgment for the price or value, with inte- | mst and corte. Thas is sho olker aepect of the oom- pivint. There aro two mepacts, it will thar be een, to favee of astlon And, aithengh if there We oe are Malet W Ohy ble a varws We Lvs cave \ | found against Captaia PB. i. Deputy Mareasl Wale ho socured hed gone, Bat did not + ed inarrevting bl, Mr, Walsh however, left the warren’ with Uhe local ofloers, and they effected, bis copture atter the Deputy Marchal recarned te’ Nee York Mr. Walsh left this city yesterday with Rie witnevees, and Gardner's exetnination will take place im Boston. n proceeced to Bosto Superior Court—Part First, Hefore Chief durtice Oakley Ocr 16 --Tn ohe ceow of Joseph Chacberiata vs, Wie liom Kogers and others, the jucy rendered @ sealed verdict for plaintiffs, $210, Meteorological Ohservations. MY MORSE'S LINK, OF Burr ato. 104. M.eCold but pleas metec 20 Thermometer 36. Wine northwest, OP. M.—Vine clear, ond pleasant, buteool Theme meter 44. Barometer 29.64 Wind light, from northwest, Rochestex, 19 A. Mom Very coid day. Wind mort, ‘Thermometer (4 9P MA beeuliful evening, but very cold. Wind northwest, Thermometer 62, x 10 A Mold and cleady moraing, with seme tain. Wind vortbwees. Vhormomater 60 nudy avd cold; raining quite hard. Wing northwest. Thermometer 46. Srescusn, 10 A M Dark and cloudy morning, Wind strong from the weet, a | —oid snd cloudy evening. Wind strong frean ew Urica 10 A. M.~Cioudy morning, Windweet. Tham Wwomever 4b. 9 P. M.--Cold, cloudy, be vee evening, with — bag 9 2 ot som rmometer = Leary --A calny morning. northwest, ‘Theemenater 63, Barometer 19.540. Meroary 70 i —Livady, oid eveniog, Wind mortaweuk _ Dated vie Senta Aoees Muverg