THE RELIEF VALVE QUESTION.

THE RELIEF VALVE QUESTION.

DETROIT, July 2.—I see in the issue of THE JOURNAL of June 30 a communication from the Shaw Valve Company, which is a plain misstatement of facts. A little more litigation on the part of the Shaw Valve Company and less bluff would be more in order. Enclosed find circular in reply to all this wind. Please insert it in your next issue, give me the same prominence as was given the Shaw Company.

ALVARADO MAYER, Inventor and Patentee of the Mayer Valve.

To Whom it May Concern :

The Shaw ReliefValve Company of Boston, having sent to all the users of my Relief Valves a circular by which that company claim that such Relief Valves are used without license, and that such valves are covered by certain patents owned by it, viz.:

Arthur M. Black, April 12, 1870. No. 101,814.

James Garland, November 14, 1871. No. 120,958.

Irven D. Shaw, January 26, 1875. No. 159,045.

Irven D. Shaw, August 3, 1880. No. 230,828.

In answer to such circular I would say that the valves now used by you, furnished by myself, are manufactured under certain patents issued to me at the following dates, viz. : December 31, 1872; February 4, 1873, and October 21, 1873. These patents antedate the Shaw patents, so that those patents are out of the way.

Lately I brought a suit against the city of Boston for infringing my patents by the use of the Shaw Valve. The Shaw Relief Valve Company were informed of the bringing of this suit and that it was necessary for that company to defend the suit; this it refused to do, and I obtained a decree against the city of Boston and the damages were paid. By allowing this suit to go against the city of Boston without defence, the Shaw Relief Valve Company admitted that the valves made under the Shaw patents were infringements of my patents.

As to the two other patents which they claim to own, I have had them carefully examined, and I can assure the users of my valve that those patents do not in any way anticipate my valves nor do my valves in the least infringe those patents.

If any action is brought against you for using any of my valves, as infringing any of the patents mentioned in the circular of the Shaw Relief Valve Company, I am prepared to defend it, and request prompt notice from you if you should be sued in any way.

, ALVARADO MAYER,

Inventor and Patentee Mayer Hose Relief Valve.

CARE GALVIN BROS. Detroit, Mich.

The following is the decree of court alluded to above :

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, District of Massachusetts.

ALVARADO MAYER, vs.

THE CITY OF BOSTON. )

In Equity.

DECREE.

The cause having been brought to a final hearing upon the pleadings and proofs, and counsel for the respective patentees having been heard, and the cause having been duly considered by the Court, upon consent of defendant for entry of this decree for complainant.

It is now found, and hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed, to-wit: February 28, 1883, that the letters patent No. 132,435, granted unto the said Alvarado Mayer on the thirty-first day of December, A. D. 1872, is a good and valid patent, being one of the patents referred to in the plaintiff’s bill, and that the said Alvarado Mayer was the first and original inventor of the improvement described and claimed in the said patent, and also that the said city of Boston, defendant, has infringed upon the said patent and upon the exclusive rigl^fs of the plaintiff” under the same.

It is further found and hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the letters patent No. 135,437, granted unto the said Alvarado Mayer, February 4, A D. 1873, is a good and valid patent, being one of the patents referred to in the said plaintiff’s bill, and that said Alvarado Mayer was the first and original inventor of the improvement described and claimed in the said patent of February 4, 1873, and also that the said defendant, the city of Boston, has infringed upon the said patent last named and upon the exclusive rights of the plaintiff under the same.

It is further found and hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the letters patent No. 143,920, granted unto the said Alvarado Mater on the twenty-fiist day of October, A. D. 1873, is a good and valid patent, being one of the improvements described and claimed in the said last named patent, and also the said defendant city of Boston has infringed upon the exclusive rights of the plaintiff under the same.

And it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that a perpetual injunction be issued in this suit against the said city of Boston, according to the prayer of the bill, and that the said plaintiff do recover of the said defendant his costs, charges and disbursements in this suit, to be taxed.

By the Court. ALEX. II. TROWBRIDGE,

Deputy Clerk.

A true copy of the final decree entered in the above entitled cause on the twenty-eighth day of February, A. D. 1883.

Witness my hand and seal of said court at Boston iu said district this twenty-eighth day of February, A. D. 1883.

[SEAL.] ALEX. H. TROWBRIDGE,

Deputy Clerk.

THE NA TIONAL ASSOCIA TION.

List of Topics and Committees on same to be presented and discussed at the Eleventh Convention of the National Association of Fire Engineers, to be held in New Orleans, October, 1883 :

Tone No. 1.

Is the present system of Insurance by agents a ruinous one; are not indue ements offered to bad men to destroy their own property; ought not risks to be taken on the owners of stock rather than their goods?

Committee—Vim. Stocked, Nashville, Tenn.; Matt. Ryan, Atlanta, Ga.; John Baulch, Fortress Monroe, Va.; C. E. Dodd, Orange, N. J.; John Link, Newport, Ky.; Geo. C. Fager, Harrisburg, Pa.; II. G. Starr, Wellington, O.

TOPIC NO. 2.

Is it not the duty of Chief Engineers to constantly agitate the importance of city authorities making as stringent laws, in regard to the storage of inflammable oils as it is gunpowder, and seeing the same properly enforced ?

Committee.—William A. Green, Boston, Mass.; S. S. Colycr, Pawtucket, R. I.; Frederick Macy, New Bedford. Mass.; II. E. Farrier, Jersey City, N. J.; W. S. Bird, Tarrytown. N. Y.; John Schenck, Altoona, Pa.; Isaac B. Hyatt, Meriden, Conn.

TOPIC NO. 3.

The large number of fires occurring annually and reported by Chiefs as caused by carelessness demands some legislative remedy; should not owners of blocks of buildings who in their erection permit timber connection between each building, and persons who permit fires to occur from carelessness in any way, to be held responsible?

Committee.—H. Clay Sexton, St. Louis, Mo.; P. J. Connell, Muskegon, Mich.; Matthew Sloan, Mobile, Ala.; Wm. Merker, New Albany, Ind., Jno. T. Larkin, Rockford, III.; J. E. Lotspiech, London, O.; T. A. Wiley, Urbana, O.

TOPIC NO. 4.

Ought persons to be required to keep at all times some proper means at hand to extinguish fires when first discovered ? Give reasons and suggest plan.

Committee.—William Stockell, Nashville, Tenn.; W. H. Glore, Covington, Ky.; Geo. C. Hale, Kansas City, Mo.; Harry McQuade, Chattanooga, Tenn.; Felix A. Barbee, Cynthiana, Ky.; William Meade, Harrison, O.; W. A. Eccles, Wheeling, W. Va.

TOPIC NO. 5.

Should not city authorities, through proper officers, pass upon all buildings to be used for manufacturing purposes, or for accommodation of the public, before being put into service or occupied ?

Committee.—D. J. Swcnie, Chicago, III.; Henry J. Eaton, Hartford, Conn.; J. R. Hopkins, Somerville, Mass.; O. N. Crane, Canandaigua, N. V.; Phil Eccles, Syracuse, N. Y.; W. M. Jeffries, Burlington, N. J.; Albert L. Welper, Harrisburg, Pa.

TOPIC NO. 6.

Please report the most feasible plan for running all electrical wires, where they have to be placed above ground, so as to prevent injury to the wires or danger to those who come in contact with them when fighting fire ; also, to do away with that abominable and unsightly plan of cross ing streets at so many different angles and heights as now is in practice in most cities. Give, also, best methods of running arc light wires to avoid danger to instruments, fire and life.

Committee.—Eli Bates, New York ; D. E. Benedict, Newark, N. J.; B. B. Bullwinkle, Chicago, Ill.; James McQuade, Albany, N. Y.; W. H. Johnson, Philadelphia, Pa.; Francis J. Meeker, Newark, N. J.; D. D. Tresenride, Columbus, O.

TOPIC No. 7.

Is it advisable to extend all elevators above the roofs of buildings, leaving an opening in the same to act as a ventilator in time of fire to carry off the smoke? If so, give reasons.

Committee.—O. E. Greene, Providence, R. I.; S. N. Evans, Pittsburgh, Pa., Ira Wood, Syracuse, N. Y.; Jno. A. Bennett, Cleveland, O.; J. V. R. Canfield, Lansing, Mich.; J. H. Reis, Greenville, O.; C. A. Ruff, Tremont, O.

TOPIC No. 8.

Is it important that Firemen should be well drilled in gymnastics, so as to better qualify them to scale walls, and save life and property? If so, propose a plan.

Committee.—B. Bryson McCool, Pottsville, Pa.; Martin Cronin, Washington, D. C.; H. L. Bixby, West Newton, Mass.; J. H. Webster, Indianapolis, Ind.; F. L. Stetson, Minneapolis, Minn.; Marsh Noe, Davenport, Iowa ; J. P. Paul, Mt. Vernon, Ind.

TOPIC NO. 9.

Is the Hook and Ladder Truck with steering apparatus more reliable, and does it meet the requirements of the service better than the Truck without the same? Give statistics of cities using both, showing the liability to accident to the Tiller Truck, etc.

Committee.—A. C. Hendrick, New Haven, Conn.; S. E. Combs, Worcester, Mass.; Thomas J. Casey, Cambridge, Mass.; Law S. Gibson, Rochester, N. Y,; Thomas O’Neil, Kalamazoo, Mich.; Thomas W. Hough, Waltham, Mass.; Abner Coleman, Taunton, Mass.

TOPIC No. 10.

What Is the extreme height buildings may be erected and be within the reach of our present Fire Apparatus, and how should buildings exceeding this height be protected against fire?

Committee.—George B. Harris, Rochester, N. Y.; Joseph Bunker, Cincinnati, O.; Levi J. De Land, Fairport, N.Y.; B. F. Bigelow, Holyoke, Mass.; George A. Ainslie, Richmond, Va.; G. A. Duerler, San Antonio, Tex.; J. C. Holloway, Springfield, O.

TOPIC No. II.

Are Automatic Sprinklers available inordinary mercantile buildings ?

Committee.—Thomas F. Nevins, Brooklyn, N. Y.; George H. Taylor, Richmond, Va,; W. H. Turner, Boston’, Mass.; D. A. Carter, Camden, N. J.; J. A. Macfarlaine, Fall River, Mass.; R. A. Ruth, Hampton, Va.; J. T. Stamford, Salem, Mass.

TOPIC NO. 12.

How should Standpipes and Fire Escapes be constructed to render them most available to Firemen in saving life and property?

Committee.—M. Benner, Chicago, III.; James Clary, Memphis, Tenn.; D. C. Larkin, Dayton, O.; Henry Lippert, Milwaukee, Wis,; A. L. Holmes, Grand Haven, Mich.; C. A. Pendleton, Hyde Park, Ill.; Daniel Meyer, Sandusky, O.

TOPIC NO. 13

What is the proper equipment for a Hook and Ladder Truck, for large cities, and how can this service be improved to meet the exigencies occasioned by tall buildings ?

Committee.—Thomas O’Connor, New Orleans, La.; E. Hughes. Louisville, Ky.; M. J. Miller, Selma, Ala.; William Price, Vicksburg, Miss.; W. H. Yates, Lexington, Ky.; J. W. Boome, Huntington, W. Va.; W. B. Stafford, Atlantic, Iowa.

TOPIC NO. 14.

Is the Telephone a safe and practical medium for transmitting fire alarms?

Committee.—A. P. Leshun, Springfield, Mass.; J. D. Hilliard, Provincetown, Mass.; J. F. Deatrich, Defiance, O.; George S. Willis, Pittsfield, Mass.; Isaac Adkins, Marblehead, Mass.; W. H. Mason, Battle Creek, Mich.

TOPIC NO. 15.

Spontaneous Combustion—(Continued). Charles T. Holloway, Baltimore Md.

HENRY A. HILLS,

Secretary.

No posts to display