Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 38, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 October 1882 — BARBED WISE. [ARTICLE]

BARBED WISE.

A Great Legal Victory of Interest to Farmers and Manufacturers. [From the Chicago Tribune.] An important decision to holders of patents for barbed wire was given by Judge Gardner in the case of the Chicago Galvanized Wire Fencb Company against the Washburn & -Moen Manufacturing Company. After the final decision by Judges Drummond and Blodgett in the famous barbed-wire cases settlements, as is well knoAvn, Avere made Avith all those who held any patents for barbed Avire or barbed-wire machines, under which the patents were to be surrendered to the company, and the patentees allowed to manufacture on paying certain royalty. The complainant’s agreement provided that the royalty to be paid under their license was not to be greater than that charged to any other party licensed after the Ist of January, 1881, under the several letters patent mentioned in the license, and if the Washburn & Moen Company should license other parties to manufacture under such patents at a less sum than three-quarters of a cent a pound then the royalty to be paid by complainant should be correspondingly reduced. Jacob Haish, however, after a vigorous fight, finally settled on far more favorable terms, and the claimant insisted that he was entitled to as good conditions as Haish. The latter was allowed to make 4,000 tons of wire a year without paying any royalty, and 4,000 tons more at a royalty of only half a cent a pound. The Judge held that the chief object of the settlement with Haish was the termination of the litigation with him; that the purchase of his patents and the Stevens claim was a secondary matter, and was used to give the appearance of a consideration to what was in reality a license free of royalty for the manufacture of 4,000 tons yearly of barbed-wire and of 4,000 tons more at a less rate by 25 cents a hundred pounds than to the other licensees,and so a reduction to Haish to that extent, of which the complainants had a right to avail themselves under their lease. In so far as the complainant sought to secure any benefit on account of the damages for infringement agreed to be paid by them, the Judge was not inclined to grant any relief, as it was doubtful Avhether it could be given under the bill, and the settlement with Haish in that regard was not a violation of any agreement or understanding with the complainant.