THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



109 



Appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court 



or the Suit on the 



"BOSS" ONE-PIECE 



SECTIONS. 



As there has been considerable contradic- 

 tion concerning: the present state of our law- 

 suit against A. I. Root, Medina, O., for 

 infringement of our patent, by manufactur- 

 ing one-piece sections, we have concluded to 

 put the whole correspondence before the 

 public. After reading it, we think there will 

 be no misunderstanding of our position. 

 The following was an editorial, published in 

 " Gleanings in Bee-Culture " dated Dec. 15, 

 1884: 



FOENCROOK'S PATENT. 



At the convention at Lansing, Mr. Forn- 

 crook scattered large numbers of circulars 

 (without date), containing the following 

 notice : 



READ THIS ! 



A word of explanation in regard to the 

 infringement suit on the One-Piece Section, 

 we deem necessary at this time. 



I commenced suit against A. I. Root, in 

 the United States Circuit Court, for the 

 Northern district of Ohio; Stanley Matthews 

 presiding. He decided that the patent was 

 ANTICIPATED. I have taken an 

 appeal to the United States Supreme Court 

 at Washington, which will decide the case, 

 and its decision will be final. If it goes 

 against me I will submit, but if decided in 

 my favor, I shall expect all who have in- 

 fringed will pay me damages from date of 

 the patent. 



Some unprincipled parties are advertising 

 that the Courts have decided that the patent 

 is void. This is not the case, as it is before 

 the United States Supreme Court at Wash- 

 ington, at the present time. When that 

 Court gives its opinion it will be final, and 

 until it does, any one infringing will be liable 

 for damages, if the United States Supreme 

 Court sustains the patent. 



James Forncrook. 



I mailed one of these to Gen. M. D. Legget, 

 ex-Commissioner of Patents, who, I presume 

 most of our friends know, is as good author- 

 ity on such matters as we have in the world. 

 I asked him to give me a reply that I could 

 publish. Here it is: 



A. I. ROOT, Esq. 



Dear Sir: — James Forncrook has not taken 

 an appeal from the decision of the Court 

 here against him. If he does take an appeal 

 hereafter, it will be only for the purpose of 

 being enabled to bulldoze the market. 



The decision here was rendered by Justice 

 Matthews, of the United States Supreme 

 Court, and no judge on the Supreme Bench 

 is more liberal toward patentees than Justice 

 Matthews is. 



There is certainly no probability, and I do 

 not believe there is any possibility, of the 

 Supreme Court ever reversing the decision 

 made by Justice Matthews here. To use the 

 threat of appeal against purchasers of your 

 honey-box blanks, is an outrage which lam 

 sure your customers will not encourage by 

 purchasing of Forncrook. Judge Matthews 

 decided that Forncrook's alleged invention 

 was fully anticipated by previous manufac- 

 tures, and alsoby patent No. 157,473, granted 

 to Hutchins, December 8, 1874, and no hon- 

 est and intelligent man can ever come to any 

 other conclusion than that, if Forncrook 

 ever takes an appeal, it will be only to hold 

 the case in the Supreme Court as long as he 

 can; but he will be certain to withdraw It, 

 and pay his costs before date of hearing. 

 Very Respectfully, etc., 



M. D. Leogett. 



Cleveland, O., Dec. 13, 1884. 



We referred the matter to our attorney, 

 Judge Wells, of Detroit, Mich., and the fol- 

 lowing is his reply: 



FORNCROOK'S PATENT. 

 Mil. James Fok.nchook, Watertown, Wis. 



Dear Sir:— I have received yours of the 

 ■JOth inst., enclosing a printed statement of 

 A. I. Root, publishcrl in his "Gleanings in 

 Hee-Culture," Dec. l.'ith. This statement 

 contains a copy of a circular issued by you, 

 stating that you had taken an appeal to the 

 Suiimiie Court at Washington, in the case 

 o( Fiirncrook vs. Root: also a letter from 

 Gen. M. D. Leggett to A. I. Root, dated 

 December 13th, 18H4, stating that you had 

 not taken an appeal. 



A brief statement will set this matter at 

 rest. Judge Matthews rendered his decision 

 August ijth, holding that your patent was 

 anticipated by previous numufactures. Soon 

 after you instructed me to take an appeal, 

 and I applied to Judge Matthews to fix the 

 amount of the appeal bond which the law 

 renuires. He did so. You then furnished 

 me a bond, the sufliciency of which was cer- 

 tified in the manner directed by Judge Mat- 

 thews. 



Just as I was about to forward this bond to 

 Judge Matthews for approval, I ascertained 

 that Root's counsel, by their own negligence, 

 had failed to enter their decree dismissing 

 the bill, which they should have done Aug- 

 ust 8th. Of course you know the, decree 

 must be entered before an appeal could be 

 taken. 



Then they proposed a decree containing 

 statements that Judge Matthews held your 

 patent void. On tlie otlier hand. I proposed 

 a decree striking out tliese statements, and 

 simply dismissing your Ifjll. Judge Matthews 

 agreed with me, and the decree as I proposed 

 it, was entered on the 'J4th of November, as 

 of the date of August 8th, and an appeal ex- 

 pressly allowed to you. The appeal can now 

 be perfected. 



So that your statement in your circular 

 that you had taken an appeal is strictly true. 

 Gen. Leggett's statement that you had not 

 taken an appeal, when you had begun to do 

 so, and was prevented perfecting it by the 

 negligence of Root's counsel, looks very like 

 a (]uibble. 



From the above statement you will see 

 Judge Matthews expressly refused to decide 

 that j-our patent was void. 



I am not in the habit of trying eases in 

 which I am counsel in the newspapers, but 

 Gen. Leggett's statement impugning your 

 good faith in taking an appeal, is entirely 

 unwarranted, and worse. His predictions 

 as to what the Supreme Court will decide, 

 are not very valuable, when it is remembered 

 he is one of Root's counsel. We will leave 

 the case for the decision of the Supreme 

 Court at Washington, which will be final. In 

 the meantime you are justified in issuing 

 the circulars, stating your rights and inten- 

 tions. Respectfully yours, 



William P. Wells. 

 Detroit, Mich., Dec. '2-.2, 1884. 



The foregoing statement carefully pre- 

 pared to give the exact facts in the matter, 

 by Judge Wells, was promptly sent by us to 

 Mr. Root, with the request to publish it, and 

 thus give the readers of "Gleanings" the 

 TRUTH in the matter. To this letter Mr.Root 

 replied as follows: 



James Forncrook, Watertown, Wis. 



Dear Sir:— Please excuse delay in answer- 

 ing your letter, recently received. I sent it 

 at once to Gen. Leggett for explanation, and 

 expected one before our issue of the 15th 

 went to press. For some reason Leggett has 

 not replied as promptly as usual, so we will 

 have to delay till next issue. To avoid any 

 thing in the papers looking like a contro- 

 versy, I think Leggett's reply ought to be 

 given in the same number. 



Yours, A. I. Root. 



Instead of publishing the statements of the 

 lawyers on each side " in the same number " 

 of his "Gleanings," Mr. Root published the 

 following as an editorial : 



In our December number, page 859, Gen. 

 Leggett declared that Forncrook had not 

 then taken an appeal. Mr. F. sent us a state- 

 ment from his lawyer, declaring the appeal 

 to have been taken, and that the clause in 

 Forncrook's price list was fully authorized. 

 I am sure I do not know who is right in the 

 matter— perhaps both are right— Forncrook 

 meaning that steps had been taken to take 

 an appeal, and I think Gen. Leggett was cer- 



tainly correct in saying that Mr. F. had not 

 taken an appeal. Mr. J, A. Osborne, who 

 had charge of the case, writes that on the 6th 

 of .January, Forncrook filed a bond with the 

 clerk of the Circuit Court, for the purpose of 

 taking an appeal, and I am to-day, Jan. Gth, 

 olficially notified that such an appeal has 

 now been taken. I do not know that it 

 makes any very great diflerenee when the 

 matter is commenced, more than that, if any 

 statements have appeared in "Gleanings" 

 not strictl.v true, it was ijecause we were 

 wrongly informed; and whenever we are 

 satisfied that we have been wrongly in- 

 formed, we are always ready to retract. 



After waiting a full month for Mr. Root to 

 publish Judge Wells' statement of the case, 

 and when " Gleanings " for Feb. 1st came to 

 hand without it, we wrote him the following 

 letter: 



Watertown, Wis., Feb. 5, 1885. 

 Mr. a. I. Root, Medina, O. 



Dear Sir:— Your letter dated Jan. 5, 188.5, 

 came duly, and stated that you had sent Mr. 

 Wells' communication in reply to your arti- 

 cle on the appeal of the one-piece-section 

 suit, to Gen. Leggett for explanation; that 

 Leggett had " not replied as promptly as 

 usiuil," and then you say, " we will have to 

 delay it till our next issue." You then added 

 that you thought " Leggett's repl.v ought to 

 be given in the same number." 



The next number came dated Jan. 15, but 

 still Mr. Wells' reply was not given. 



Your item on page 73 does not cover the 

 ground. I am placed in "the lie" before 

 your readers in tfie Dec. 15th number, and so 

 left by the Jan. 1.5th issue. I fully expected 

 you would have Mr. Wells' letter and Gen, 

 Leggett's in " Gleanings " for Feb. 1, but 

 that number has come to hand without any 

 reference to it. 



Will you please state by return mail why 

 you have not done as you promised me in 

 your letter of Jan. 5, as quoted above; and 

 whether you will or will not do so; and, if 

 you will do so, when? 



Respectfully, James FORNCROok. 



To this he replied as follows, positively de- 

 clining to retract his false statements in 

 "Gleanings: " 



Medina, O., Feb. 9, 1885. 

 James Forncrook, Watertown, Wis. 



Friend F.: — At the time we wrote you, I 

 did intend to publish your letter with Leg- 

 gett's, but I dou't see that I made any prom- 

 ise. I was waiting Leggett's reply, and when 

 I received it, I was satisfied that too much 

 space, if anj-thing had alread.y been given 

 the matter. The editorial notice we gave, 

 was, I think, very kind and courteous, under 

 the circumstances. If any other bee-paper 

 chooses to give space to the matter, it can 

 do so, but I am pretty well satisfied that no 

 more room will be occupied with it on the 

 pages of " Gleanings." Yours, A. I. Root. 



CONCLUSIONS. 

 By the foregoing we have proved, beyond 

 successful contradiction — 



1. That we liad taken an appeal to the 

 Supreme Com-t of the United States, 

 agahist the decision of Judge Matthews 

 that the patent on one-piece sections was 

 ANTICIPATED. The decision of that Court 

 will be final. 



2. That we were only prevented from 

 perfecting that appeal by the negligence of 

 Mr. Root's comisel — and tliat the appeal is 

 dated Aug. 8, 1884. 



3. That our announcement to bee-keep- 

 ers, quoted at the head of this article, was 

 fully warranted and strictly correct. 



4. That Mr. Root's refusal to publish the 

 facts, when sent him for that purpose, (and 

 thereby clear us from his cliarge of false- 

 hood), is unjust and unreasonable^ and if 

 he liad any regard for trutu he would 

 have published it as widely as he did his 

 statement to the contrary. 



James Fornckook & Co. 

 Watertown, Wis., Feb. 13, 1885. 



