168 



THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



not fiiniislied with all the facts in the case, we 

 think is clciir. 



The case was brought by K. P. Kidder as the 

 assignee of Clark, against Mr. Trask. The case 

 w^s not a calendered case ; the papers were filed 

 on Jan. d, and the first opportunity the public 

 had of knowing there was such a case was when 

 it was called for trial, Jan. 5. Mr. J. R. Bennett 

 appeared for the plaintiff, although the name of 

 13. S. Senator M. H. Carpenter appears as one of 

 the attorneys, and we understand, the case was 

 really managed b}^ one May. 



Mr. Gregory, of the firm of Gregory & Pianey 

 appeared for the defendant. He stated to the 

 court that it was an agreed case : that he had 

 only just been retained and had not had time to 

 investigate it ; that he felt it due to the court and 

 himself that these facts should be known before 

 he would consent to try the case. And here we 

 wish to state that we believe Mr. Gregory acted 

 iu good faith ; that he believed the full case had 

 been furnished him and that it was brought as an 

 amicable suit to settle a disputed point — in other 

 words we believe he was deceived. While we 

 think it to be regretted that he allowed himself to 

 try a case of the kind without more full personal 

 investigation, we do not for a moment believe he 

 acted in a way that the strictest sense of honor 

 would not approve, with the light he then had. 

 He is an able, widely known and deservedly es- 

 teemed attorney. 



We do not understand that Senator Carpenter 

 appeared at all iu the case, and from what we 

 knoAV of Mr. Bennett we do not believe he was a 

 party to any deception. We know nothing of 

 Mr. May. 



Several witnesses appeared for the plaintiff, a 

 hive v.'as shown, and the case was evidently 

 well ]n-epared on that side.* No witnesses ap- 

 peared for the defence, and we understand the 

 only evidence offered on that side was a copy of 

 Langstroth's original patent, in which there is no 

 reference whatever to this device. The defence, 

 as we have heard it reported, consisted mainly of 

 an ingenious and able attempt to prove tliat the 

 device was not patentable, and that its use here 

 was in consequence of the discovery of an 

 instinct of the bees, which discovery was not 

 patentable. 



Seeking for that which, had he known all the 

 facts in the case he would have not needed to 

 have sought, we understand that Mr. Gregory 

 asked each witness if he had kuown of any use 

 of this device before the date of the Clark patent, 

 1859, and that each testified that he had not. 

 If this be true we can explain such an answer by 

 no satisfactory supposition. 



Tlie case went to the jury, who returned a ver- 

 didt for the plaintiff, awarding him damages for 

 the use by the defendant of the Laugstroth frame 

 with this triangular comb guide 



No one, we suppose, claims that the defendant 

 expected or wislied to gain the case. We are 

 informed he has used the "Kidder Hive" for 

 years, and has defended his claim. He stated, 

 soon alter the close of the case, that he had 

 expected to lose it, and thought he ought to. 



The plaintiff was in our^othce for an hour 

 on Jan. 4, and again on Jan. 5, but the first 

 intimation we had of the case was after it had 



been decided, on Jan. 6 ; althougb, Avhen we 

 were so informed, it occurred to us that we had 

 heard of it, and we so informed the plaintiff. 

 A gentleman interested in the defence was 

 informed by a prominent witness for the defence, 

 the morning the case was called, that it would 

 not be tried. A "remarkable coincidence" is 

 found in the fact that Mr. Kidder, when he first 

 called at our office, asked if we had received the 

 January number of the American Bee Journal, 

 and on being informed that it had just arrived, 

 but that we had not yet read it, asked for it; 

 carefully read a minute statement in it by Mr. 

 Langstroth of his claim ; asked permission to 

 take the paper with him for a day ; took it ; 

 returned next day, and asked permission to keep 

 it another day, and finally returned it within an 

 hour of the rendering of the verdict. This'copy 

 was probably the only one in the city. It may 

 have comported with his sense of honor to sit 

 through the trial of an agreed case, where it was 

 understood that all the facts were presented, 

 with this statement of the claims of the defence 

 snugly stowed iu his pocket. 



Another very singuhir circumstance Avas that, 

 very soon after the decision, we were called upon 

 by two gentlemen and requested to publish a 

 "report" of the trial, which was read to us — 

 most of it having obviously been written before 

 the close of the trial. We were gravely informed 

 that, as the case was one of much importance, 

 and as they had noticed we were not at the trial, 

 they would like to have us publish this " report," 

 and that the writer of it had no interest in the 

 case. We stated that we would publish it and 

 would call editorial attention to it. This we do 

 by stating that its author has been for years an 

 agent for Mr. Kidder ; was a prominent witness 

 for him in the case ; has asked persons to settle 

 with him for the use of this device ; that his 

 name is not the one signed to the report, and 

 that the whole thing is a very clumsy attempt to 

 produce a false impression. 



We can conceive of no profit which Mr. 

 Kidder hopes to accomplish by his course, that 

 will prove it wise for him to have taken it. He 

 cannot suppose that this decision will be quietly 

 allowed to stand. The case," we repeat, is one 

 for the courts to decide, and we do not attempt 

 to say which claim ought to be allowed, but we 

 would refuse to pay for infringement in the use 

 of this device, until the case had been fairly and 

 fully tried ; and it certainly was not so tried iu 

 this suit, and our faith in the strength and 

 rightfulness of the plaintiff's case is certainly not 

 strengthened by the course he has pursued in 

 relation to this trial. 



[For the American Bee Journal.] 



A Request. 



Mr. Editor : — I propose building on the sur- 

 face of the ground, for winter use, a bee house 

 large enough for sixty stands. I wish to know 

 the best plan for ventilating, and also the proper 

 size of ventilators. Suggestions based on ex- 

 perience or experiments will oblige. 



John Clarke. 



Liberty, Ind. 



