For the Register and Journal.
{"newspaper_name": "Mobile register and journal.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 1026, "word_count": 180, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9336000084877014], "ccnet_perplexity": [1652.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
MEssRs. EDiToRs-ln ihe notice Of decision made by Judge Nelson of (New York) against cer. lain plamffs, who prosecuted party for lnfringin patent right. lt is asserted that the decision was made on tie ground that the plaintiffs having sold or vended the article invented before taking out a pa- !ent--iI was considered abandonment, io the pub hc'of the right and that "this decision againsi fhs commonly receped oprnion." The fact was not properly stated By the Act of March 3d, 1889, sec. Ed, " no pftenl shall be held to be vahd, b, reason o the purchase. rale, Ioi ihe invention ''of to eapplca'Ion4or palentus aforesaid, ex- sP. oa proof of abandonment of sucht tinveniion to

 e po"c, or 'haI such purchase. sale, public use, "as pee" tor more than two years pr for to such ap. pl,cation for d patent" '' e''e' "p

 ae 'as's therefore which governed the decision nua. no doubt have heen, the proof of abandonment or 'he sae ana the use of the invention more than w" years prior to application for patent.

 "OBSEkVATOR."