OCR Text |
Show HE CLAIMS EDISON'S LAMP, Freeman Allege In Court That he Invented the Ineaudeiieeiit Lamp. New York, May 27. Before Judge lngraham in the supreme court yesterday yester-day trial was begun of a suit brought by Walter K. Freeman against the United States Elect rio Lighting company. In his complaint Freeman avers that ho invented the incnndcsccnl electric lamp prior to August, 1H78, nml sent a lamp to Edison at Monlo Park, N, J., ami that about two years afterward Edison announced the invention to tho world as his own. He then asserts that Edison Edi-son offered him $.10,000 if he would refrain re-frain from mentioning tho fact that be was in reality tho inventor nml hail sent sample lamps to Edison. The lamp he claims to have sent to Edison embodies all the features of the Edison lamp, consisting of a high carbon car-bon filament of high resistance secured to platinum wires mid enclosed in a glass globo from which tho ulrhad been exhatisted, Freeman now claims a residence in this city, but is coniieetwl with a business busi-ness at Oakilair, Wis. lie was at lta-cine lta-cine In 187ft when ho sent the lamp, as alleged, to Edison, and was subsequently subse-quently taken Into tho employ of the defendant company during a part of the year 1H82. He brings his suit, against the United States Kloctrio Lighting company, alleging al-leging that a written contract was made with that company in June, 1HH1, which provided that If a patent were obtained on Freeman's alleged Inventions Inven-tions which should bo superior to the patent which Ellison had at that time obtained, the company should have the option of tabing it or paying him KKI,-000. KKI,-000. No patent was granted, and he claims that the company was dorclo ct in pushing the claim. Ho lays his damages dam-ages at l."i0,000, part of which is for salary duo for the failure of the company com-pany to continue him in ils employment. employ-ment. It is contended by tho defence that the contract was not made for the benefit ben-efit of the company, that the defendant made the application to the patent ollice in his own behalf, and that his appli Villon Vi-llon whs rejected as invalid. It is further claimed that Freeman secured se-cured the contract by false representations representa-tions and pursuant to a scheme of fraud to get motley anil employment without giving anytfiing of value In return. Tho greater part of yesterday was occupied in the cross-examination of , Freeman, lie stuck to his story well, j |