From ihe Bos,on 7'raascripf.
{"character_count": 820, "word_count": 144, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9258999824523926], "ccnet_perplexity": [1077.699951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Mir. Editor-We notice an ariicie in yOnn paper. stating the final decision # th. Circuit Court in the case of John Amrs. against us. It is true that the motion for new trial, spon the grounds set forth Herein, was refused hy the Court hut it is not true that the validity of Amrs's Patent is completely established. On the contrary. we have no doubt, that on the future trial, abundant testimony. not of- fered at the former tria, will he prod Icrd, which will be sulicient to invalilaie the Pa tent. We are ourselves in possession nf new and additional evidence. sufficient of itself to produce d different result should Mr. Ames venture to try the validity of the Patent, in a suit against any otherrof the numerous manu- facturrrs--none of whom, we believe, will acqniesce in the present decision.

 HowARD & LATHROP.