PHILADELPHIA, March 17.- Keely's secret of the manipulations of his mysterious motor which he has guarded so securely for many years in spite of the efforts for disclosure made by dissatisfied stockholders of the motor company, is at last to be divulged. To-day Judge Finletter handed down the opinion of the court in the suit brought by Bennett G. Wilson, who claims to hold an assignment of Keely's motor invention, made to him in 1868, which grants an order for the inspection of all the motor machine made by Keely, and compels him to explain the theories of their workings to Wilson and such experts as may be named with in a few days. Lawyer William C. Strawbridge, the Patent Attorney, who for the National Government conducted its famous suits against the Bell Telephone Company for the annulments of its patents, will, as Wilson's counsel, present to the court for its approval an order prescribing the method of inspection.
Mr. Strawbridge says the order which is being now prepared for the consideration and approval of the court will have for its purpose the enabling of Wilson to make out, if the facts so warranted, the allegations of his bill of complaint as to the identity of the motor of 1869 with the motor of the present day, and for the further object of determining the extent of Wilson's ownership under the assignment of partnership between him and Keely. In other words, the order will be such a one as the court in its opinion says "is necessary for an intelligent consideration of the rights of the parties."
In his opinion Judge Finletter says: "The defendant has in no way stated what the principle and machine were which he assigned to plaintiff. He is the only one who could give any information upon this subject and enable us to judge correctly between the contradictory statements of the parties. This information would either corroborate him or corroborate the plaintiff. He has withheld it and he may no complain if we are compelled thereby to draw inferences unfavorable to his assertions.
"In this case we find it impossible to determine from the affidavits and arguments of counsel what the principle and machine assigned to plaintiff may be in construction, operation, or results. We know a little more of the Keely motor in this respect, but even that is vague and indefinite. The examination is therefore necessary for an intelligent consideration of the right of the parties. It may also determine this proceeding, and can be made without injury to the right of any one interested."
(The New York Times)
March 18, 1888
See Also