" Tha case of Page vs. Terry, to whioh we referred in our last issue, is one of more than ordinary interest, as it involves the exclusive control of the circular saw mills used for sawing lumber from ordinary saw logs throughout the United States."—Detroit paper. There has been another suit tried since the above, (Page vs. Westervelt), in which the same points were at issue, and both resulted in favor of the plaintiff. Both were tried at Detroit, before Ross Wilkins, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The plaintiff claims that all circular saws used for that purpose, which have guides near the edge in combination with end-play to the shaft, are controlled by his patent, and that no one has any right to use them without a license from him. The defence was put On the grounds:— First, That from the drawings and specifications in the plaintiff's patent, the mill could not be constructed. Second, That the patent was useless, as better lumber could be made without the plaintiff's improvements. Third, That there had been no infringement by defendant. The trial lasted a fortnight, and was closely litigated at every point. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiff on all the issues, thereby giving him the complete control of that class of mills. There are many thousands of them in operation, and the demand for them is daily increasing. The charge of the Court was in favor of the plaintiff on nearly every legal question which arose in the case, and was substantially the same as that given by Judge McLean on the first trial.—Angelica (JV. Y.) Recorder. [The foregoing extracts were sent to us a few weeks since for publication; but from their tone we deemed them partial, and from the language used, we knew they were incorrect, and we therefore would not publish them. Since that period they have come to us again, accompanied with the following note of Judge Wilkins :— H. B. NOBTHKOP, ESQ.—Dear Sir: The charge of the Court in the above case was substantially the same, on the main points involved, as that of Judge McLean in Page us. Terry. There were other questions, collateral and incidental, most of which were decided in favor of defendant. The verdict was for plaintiff on tho facts of utility, infringement, and the sufficiency of the specifications and drawings. The construction of the patent was with the plaintiff. Ross WILKINS, United States District Judge. Detroit, Feb. 25, 1858. This note of Judge Wilkins contradicts the language employed, as quoted from the " Detroit paper," which conveys the idea plainly that the case involved the exclusive control of all circular saw mills for sawing lumber from ordinary saw logs throughout the United States. The decision referred to Page's improvements exclusively; and his patent, granted July 16, 1841, sets forth what those improvements are, in the following claim :— " I claim the manner of affixing and guiding the circular saw by allowing end-play to its shaft, in combination with the means of guiding it by friction rollers embracing it near to its periphery, so as to leave its center entirely unchecked laterally." There is also a disclaimer as follows: " I do not claim the use of friction rollers embracing and guiding the edge of the circular saw, these having been previously used for that purpose, but I limit my claim to their use in combination with a saw having free lateral play at the center." The method of applying the friction rollers, by attaching them to pivots, is also claimed; likewise the forming of a long carriage by uniting two short sections by means of a rack—thus rendering the mill portable ; but we have quoted all that is necessary from the claims which have a bearing on the above case. A patent was granted for circular saw mills as early as 1795, to Z. Cox, of Georgia; and in August, 1834, Thomas Blanchard obtained a patent on improved circular saw mills for sawing lumberfrom logs. Mr. Page's patent is undoubtedly a very important one, but it does not by any means cover circular saw mills in the broad sense of the term. This patent was extended for seven years from July 16th, 1855.
This article was originally published with the title "Circular Saw Mills—Patent Decision"