236 Memoir of the Life of Eli Whitney. 
ihe part of the defendant -—That from the testimony now produ- 
ced, his opinion is, that the plaintiff must have received his first im- 
pressions from a machine previously in use, on a similar principle ; 
and that an improvement had been made as to the teeth, by which 
the merit of Mr. Whitney’s original invention was diminished. For 
these reasons Judge Stephens had some doubts whether the Plain- 
tiff ought to recover. 3 
Judge Johnson remarked to the jury, that after hearing the evi- 
dence, which had been relied on by the defendant, he remained con- 
tent with the opinion which he had given in the case of Whitney, 
against Fort, and that he was also as fully satisfied with the charge he 
was about to give, as any he had delivered. That as to the origin 
of this invention, the plaintiff’s title remained unimpeached by any 
evidence which has been adduced in this cause. He agreed with 
the plaintiff’s council, that the legal title to a patent consists not in a 
principle merely, but in an application of a principle, whether pre- 
viously in existence or not, to some new and useful purpose. And 
he was also of opinion, that the principle of Mr. Whitney’s machine 
was entirely new, that it originated with himself, and that it had no 
resemblance to that of the model exhibited by the defendant. . 
He considered the defendant’s second objection equally un- 
supported, and referred to the sixth section of the Patent Law of 
the United States, by which it is required that the concealment al- 
leged (in order to defeat the Patentee’s recovery,) must appe! a4 
have been made for the purpose of deceiving the public. That 
Mr. Whitney in the original formation of this machine; could have 
“no motive for such concealment, and that in making use of wire; 
preference to the other mode, he appears to have acted according 
the dictates of his judgment. If in this instance he erred, the ertol 
related to a point, not affecting the merit of his invention, of the va 
lidity of his patent.—Verdict for plaintifi—Damages two thousad 
dollars. 
Same Term, Whitney against Gachet, same cause of actiol.— 
Verdict for Plaintiff—Damages one thousand five hundred dollars: 
The influence of these decisions, however, availed Mr. Whitney 
very little, for now the term of his patent right was nearly exp * 
e than sixty suits had been instituted in Georgia before a single 
sion on the merits of his claim was obtained, and at the pe : 
i cision, thirteen years of his patent had expired. In prone” 
tion of this troublesome business, Mr. Whitney had made $* differ 
