Hide Article Text (OCR)
Some of the Grist Ground in Recent Suits. Results are beginning to accrue from the primary decision made in favor of Paul E. Wirt in his suit against the American News Company, and from the subsequent decision, where in the motion of the defendant com pany to be allowed to give a bond and continue the sale of the “Ever Ready” fountain pen as before, pending the defendant's appeal, was denied. Both were reported in this paper at the time of their occurrence. In ye Stationer's report of the first decision , in this case it said : “When the damages have been ascertained and collected that will mark the end of this famous suit, but this does not necessarily mean that that will be the end of all fountain pen litigation. The state of the trade, already in an unsatisfactory and un settled condition because of the pendency of the suit just decided and other suits of a similar nature in other quarters, is not to be allowed to re main calm and undisturbed for a very great length of time, if all reports are to be believed. It is said that Mr. Wirt, flushed with another success, will renew his demand for settlement with even greater peremptoriness than was the case before he locked horns with the American News Company. It is rumored that letters of notifica tion were sent out to some of the big gest buyers in the fountain pen line before the ink was hardly dry open the pen with which the judge put his Signature to the decree calling upon them to step up to the captain’s office and settle. These threats were taken as idle when made before, but the result was that one of the strongest companies of all those against whom they were made was chosen as an example and victim. ‘They now know what it means, and it is a rightful in ference to draw that, strengthened by another legal decision, Mr. Wirt will be even more strenuous in insisting upon and maintaining the rights for which he has fought and won.” Recent happenings have borne out these statements, and from all that can be learned there is likely to be forthcoming in due time more examples of corroborative evidence of a like character to those recorded below, or else all signs and rumors are un usually misleading, unreliable and un decipherable except to those who are on the inside. The result of each suit which has so far been brought and settled or judicially decided has been that some of the fountain pen manufacturers have been corralled, as it were, and required to take out a license from Mr. Wirt. The result of the suit against the American News Company has not been an exception to the rule, and two New York fountain pen manufacturers are recorded as having entered into agreements with Mr. Wirt for the peaceful continuation in the manu facture of their respective pens. They are David W. Beaumer, who makes the “Rival,” and W. G. Frazer and H. W. Geyer, who, under the firm style of William G. Frazer Co, or, as they sometimes advertise, the Lin coln Fountain Pen Company, make the “Lincoln” fountain pen. Both parties last week signed agreements with Mr. Wirt in which they acknowl edge as right all the claims of the Stone patent, agree to take out li censes for manufacture from Mr. Wirt, stamp their pens as made under his patents, to pay a royalty therefor thereafter, at so much per pen, ac cording to the retail price thereof, to pay immediate and substantial dam ages in a gross sum covering the pens they have already sold, and holding themselves liable to the payment of a yet greater sum as a penalty in case they shall fail to comply with the terms of their agreements. In this connection it is interesting to note the number of cases which have been brought by or against Mr. Wirt and the disposal of each. The time they cover is almost twelve years, beginning January 21, 1887, when an injunction was granted in the case of Paul E. Wirt v. Francis C. Brown. The others are as follows, the dates being the dates of injunction or settle ments: February 4, 1888, Wirt v. D. W. Lapham and S. H. Bogert, decree and injunction; December 14, 1888, Wirt v. D. W. Lapham and S. H. Bogert, decree and injunction; May 12, 1890, George H. Sackett v. Paul E. Wirt et al., bill dismissed ; October T6, 1890, Wirt v. William S. Hicks et al., injunction granted, with an ac counting and costs; May 11, 1895, Wirt v. Mabie, Todd Bard, still discontinued, defendants taking out a license and paying damages and costs; March 8, 1898, Wirt v. American News Company, injunction granted ; the case is now on appeal. In addi tion to this numerous licenses, as be fore said, have been taken out by some of the leading manufacturers of the United States. ‘These have been recorded in the American Stationer from time to time, and George S. Robbins, to whose efforts much is due, and who furnished the above data at the request of this paper, has called attention to the graded scale upon which these operations have been carried on. He points out how, from the first licenses to the last , above enumerated, those manufactur ers whose pens most affected the business of Mr. Wirt were first re quired to take out a license to manu facture their pens under his patents, and those manufacturers the sale of whose pens had less effect were last approached. With these straws it does not seem to be difficult to see in what quarter the fountain pen wind will shift next.—The American Stationer.
Newspaper Details
Bloomsburg Columbian
Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, US
Thu, Apr 28, 1898
Page 8
Full Page
Clipped by
Matthew G.
USA 24 May 2026
Other Publications Near Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania
Bloomsburg Star Of The North
Bloomsburg Columbian
Bloomsburg Campaign
Bloomsburg Democrat
Bloomsburg Columbia Democrat and Bloomsburg General Advertiser
