Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

ward, must be nicely determined, so as to show as little resistance to the fluid as possible; whilst, at the same time, it must be exceedingly strong.

It is my opinion that no more body of a vessel (intended for fast-sailing weatherly qualities) ought to be immersed in the fluid than what is actually necessary to secure her stability, and keep her to windward; as it stands to reason that all long vessels must drag a certain portion of the fluid along with them, which tends a little to retard their velocity. But it must also be remembered, that if there is one square foot less of resisting surface exposed to the fluid than what is necessary to keep to windward, it would be equally as bad, because upon a wind the vessel would fall to leeward.

The only disadvantages of the hull upon the new construction is, great draft of water, and unfitness for grounding in a tideway where it is hard, as she would lay over at a considerable angle. Were she to ground where the bottom was soft, the last mentioned disadvantage would be

overcome.

Were a vessel of this plan to be built upon a slip, a cradle for launching her in could easily be constructed. Were she to be built in a dry dock, the water, of course, would just be allowed to flow in, and she would float out; and in the event of her requiring repairs, the necessary precaution would also be taken to have the ways suitable for the purpose.

II. New Rig.

The advantages of the new rig are power, safety, and handiness, having a decided superiority for expeditious working, and being capable of manoeuvring a vessel through more evolutions with greater exactness than any other rig that ever preceded it.

The fore and aft equilateral sails being set, a vessel is always under government when there is wind, and will never miss stays if properly managed; as the sails have an equal advantage of propelling and manoeuvring astern as they have ahead.

The principle upon which these sails are worked is simply this; there are yards fixed at the middle in swivels on each stem-head, those yards are kept from topping either way by lifts that are made fast to other swivels at the mast-heads.

The sheets of the sails are hauled out with travellers round the yards.

The sails are hoisted up by a single tie, that reeves through the swivel at the mast-head, so that, in case the yards should be turned round and round, the tie is always kept clear. When these sails are set tight, there is an equal strain on both leech ropes, and, as the greatest body of the canvass is low, the principal strain comes on the swivels at the stemheads and the lower yards that spread

them.

The fore and after masts can be secured with shrouds on each side, and stays from the main and main-top mast head. The lower lifts will be sufficient support to prevent the masts from bending upwards.

The main-mast may be rigged, and sails made to be worked on it, as on board of any other square rigged-vessel; but what I would recommend for small craft is, that the top-gallant and royal mast (which will be one spar,) go sliding gunter fashion abaft the main and main-top mast, which is also one spar.

When the top-gallant mast is struck, its heel may be stepped on deck, so that, when its backstays are set up, it will be no burden upon the main mast, but rather a support.

The square sails on the main-mast have the advantage of receiving the full strength of the breeze from all points; there being no eddy winds to affect them either from fore or mizen topsails. Sailing off the wind, studding sails may be set from all the yards as required.

The safety of the foregoing rig in tacking, wearing, or boxhauling, is unequalled. There is no danger apprehended as there is in that of a main-boom jibbing; there is little danger of splitting sails, as jibs are so liable to do.

The fore and aft equilateral sails go round on their centre: they are easily worked, reduced, or taken in.

From the sails being equally balanced over the vessel, she is not so liable to pitch heavily as rigs where the greater quantity of canvass is before the centre of gravity.

A vessel properly adapted for this rig ought to be sufficiently large, so as to admit of the lower yards working clear of the heads of those standing on deck.

I may also remark, that, in performing any of the evolutions above specified, there is no necessity to swing the lower yards round, unless the person who is work

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

The length of hull A C. Upon A C construct the equilateral triangle, A DC and A FC on the opposite side of the line. Join D F. Draw CE and AR parallel to D F. Make the angles C F E, AF R, equal to DFA, DFC. Produce D C, DA. Through the angles of meeting R and E, draw the line PROBLEM, and it is finished. Then will ROBLE represent the length of hull, B F will be the depth, FE, FR the stem and stern posts, FOA, FLC the fore and after masts. FBD the main mast. PRO, LEM, is the length of the fore and after yards. Twice CE M or ARP are the fore and after sails. A C will be the length of main stays, and A D, C D the main-top-gallant stays.

Draw O U the length of hull, which bisect at C with the line Z & produced on both sides. With th the length of hull in your compasses, place one foot in U and the other in I, and describe the arch U O; and, with the same distance in your compases, place

[blocks in formation]

The Lord Chief Justice Tindall:-This was an action on the case for the infringement of a patent granted to the plaintiff on the 28th of September, 1836, for an improvement in the manufacture of iron. The declaration was in the usual form, and the defendants pleaded thereto, first, that they were not guilty; secondly, that the plaintiff was not the first and true inventor of the said improvement upon each of which pleas issue was joined;—thirdly, after setting out at length the plaintiff's specification, the defendants pleaded that the alleged improvement therein described was not a new manufacture invented by the plaintiff within the intent and meaning of the statute, as to the public use and exercise thereof in England; which allegation was traversed by the plaintiff in his replication; fourthly, the defendant pleaded that the nature of the plaintiff's invention, and the manner in which it was to be performed, was not particularly described or ascertained by the plaintiff in his specification-upon which plea issue was joined; and in their last plea, the defendants, after referring to the plaintiff's specification before set out in the third plea, stated the grant of letters patent, dated the 11th of September, 1828, to one James Beaumont Neilson, for an improved application of air to produce heat in fires, forges and furnaces, where bellows and other blowing apparatus were required-that Neilson's invention was the production and application of a hot-air blast, and was in public use with Neilson's licence in the smelting and manufacturing of iron from iron-stone, and was the hot-air blast in the plaintiff's specification mentioned-that the plaintiff could not use the hot-air blast mentioned in his specification without Neilson's licence, and that he had obtained such licence before the grant of his letters patent, and that the

using, by the plaintiff, of the hot-air blast in the smelting of iron from iron-stone, combined with anthracite or stone-coal, as mentioned in his specification, was a using and imitating of Neilson's invention, whereby the plaintiff's patent was void. The plaintiff replied to this last plea that Neilson's invention was not the same hot-air blast; and that the machinery and apparatus adapted for the application thereof, mentioned and referred to in the plaintiff's specification, was not, nor was the using by the plaintiff of the invention, as described in his specification, a using and imitating of Neilson's invention, described in Neilson's specification; which allegation is traversed by the defendants in their rejoinder. At the trial before me, a verdict was entered for the plaintiff on all the issues, subject to the opinion of the Court, upon the evidence given at the trial, as contained in a report agreed upon between the parties, the Court being at liberty to draw the same inference from it as a jury might draw. On the argument it was contended by the defendants, that the verdict ought to be entered for them on each of the issues joined on the record; but as the main question between the parties turns on the third issue, which involves the question whether the invention of the plaintiff is a manufacture within the intent and meaning of the statute of James, that is, whether it is or is not the subject matter of a patent; and as the determination of this issue in favour of the one party or the other will render the decision of the other issues free from difficulty, the simplest way will be to apply ourselves in the first instance to that question. Now in order to determine whether the improvement described in the patent is, or is not a manufacture within the statute, we must, in the first place, ascertain precisely what is the invention claimed by the plaintiff, and then by the application of some principles admitted and acknowledged in the application of the law relating to patents, and by the authority of decided cases, determine the question in dispute between the parties. The plaintiff describes the object of his invention to be the application of anthracite, or stone-coal, combined with hot-air blast, in the smelting or manufacture of iron from iron-stone, mine, or ore, and states distinctly and unequivocally at the end of his specification that he does not claim the use of a hot-air blast separately as of his invention, when uncombined with the application of anthracite or stone-coal; nor does he claim the application of anthracite or stone-coal, when uncombined with the using of hot-air blast; but that what he claims as his invention, is the application of anthracite, or stone-coal and culm, combined with the using of hotair blast, in the smelting and manufacture of

iron from iron-stone, mine, or ore. And the question, therefore, becomes this, whether admitting the using of the hot-air blast to have been known before in the manufacture of iron with bituminous coal, and the use of anthracite and stone-coal to have been known before in the manufacture of iron with cold-blast; but that the combination of the two together (the hot-blast and the anthracite) were not known to be combined before in the manufacture of iron, whether such combination can be the subject of a patent. We are of opinion that if the result produced by such a combination is either a new article, or a better article, or a cheaper article to the public than that produced before by the old method, that such combination is an invention or manufacture intended by the statute, and may well become the subject of a patent. Such an assumed state of facts falls clearly within the principle exemplified by Abbot, Chief Justice, in the case of The King v Wheeler, 2d Barnewall and Adolphus, 349, where he is determining what is, or what is not the subject of a patent, namely, it may perhaps extend to a new proces to be carried on by known implements or elements acting upon known substances, and ultimately producing some other known substance, but producing it in a cheaper or more expeditious manner, or a better or more useful kind; and it falls, also, within the doctrine laid down by Lord Eldon, in Hill v. Thompson, in 3rd Merivale, 629, namely, there may be a valid patent for a known combination of materials previously in use, for the same purpose or even for a new method of applying such materials; but the specification must clearly express that it is in respect of such new combination or application. There are numerous instances of patents which have been granted, where the invention consisted in no more than in the use of things already known, and acting with them in a manner already known, and producing effects already known; but producing those effects so as to be more economically or beneficially enjoyed by the public. It will be sufficient to refer to a few instances, some of which patents have failed on other grounds, but none on the ground that the invention itself was not the subject of a patent. We may first instance Hall's patent for applying the flame of gas to singe off the superfluous fibres of lace, where a flame of oil had been used before for that same purpose; Derosne's patent, in which the invention consisted in filtering the syrup of sugar through a filter, to act with animal charcoal, and charcoal from bituminous schistus, where charcoal had been used before in the filtering of almost every other liquor except the syrup of sugar; Hill's patent in 3d Merivale above referred to, for improvements in

PATENT LAW CASES.

the smelting and working of iron, there the invention consisted only in the use and application of the slags or cinders thrown off by the operation of smelting, which had been previously considered useless for the production of good and serviceable metal by the admixture of mine rubbish; again, Daniel's patent was taken out for improvements in dressing woollen cloth, where the invention consisted in immersing a roll of cloth, manufactured in the usual manner, into hot water.-See The King v Daniel, in Mr. Godson's book on patents, 274. The only question, therefore, that ought to be considered on the evidence is, was the iron produced by the combination of the hotblast and the anthracite a better or a cheaper article than was produced from the combination of the hot-blast and the bituminous coal? and was the combination described in the specification new, as to the public use thereof in England? And upon the first point, upon looking at the evidence in the cause, we think there is no doubt that the result of the combination of the hot-blast with the anthracite, on the yield of the furnaces was more, the nature, properties, and quality of the iron, better, and the expense of making the iron less, than it was under the former process, by means of the combination of the hot-blast with the bituminous coal. It is to be observed, that no evidence was produced on the part of the defendants to meet that given by the plaintiff on these grounds, and that it was a necessary consequence, from the proof in the cause, that the substitution of the anthracite coal, in whole or in part, instead of, or in the place of bituminous coal, from the substitution of that, the manufacture of the iron should be obtained at less expense. It was objected, in the course of the argument, that the quality or degree of invention was so small, that it could not become the subject-matter of a patent; that a person who could procure a license to use the hot-air blast under Neilson's patent, had a full right to apply that blast to coal of any nature whatever, whether bituminous or stone coal. But we think, if it were necessary to consider the labour, pains, and expense incurred by the plaintiff, in bringing his discovery to perfection, that there is evidence in this cause that the expense was considerable, and the experiments numerous. But in point of law, the labour of thought or experiments, and the expenditure of money, are not the essential grounds of consideration on which the question-whether the invention is or is not the subject-matter of a patent? ought to depend; for if the invention be new and useful to the public, it is not material whether it be the result of long experiments and profound research, or whether by some sud

:

509

den and lucky thought, or mere accidental discovery. The Case of Monopolies, 11th Coke, states the law to be, that where a man, by his own charge or industry, or by his own wit or invention, brings a new trade into the realm, or any engine tending to the furtherance of a trade, that never was used before, and that was for the good of the realm, that the King may grant him the monopoly of a patent for a reasonable time. If the combination now under consideration be, as we think it is, a manufacture within the statute of James the First, there was abundant evidence in the cause, that it had been the great object and desideratum, before the granting of the patent, to smelt iron-stone, by the means of anthracite coal, and that it had never been done before: there is no evidence on the part of the defendants to meet that which the plaintiff brought forward. These considerations, therefore, enable us to direct that the verdict ought to be entered for the plaintiff, on the third issue; that it was a new manufacture-new as to the public use and exercise thereof within England and Wales. On the same ground, also, the second issue is disposed of in favour of the plaintiff no evidence was produced on the part of the defendant to show any inventor earlier than the plaintiff; nor does the fact that there was an earlier inventor appear from the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses. As to the first issue, namely, whether the defendants had infringed the patent, we think it clearly appears on the evidence, that the defendants had used, either in part or in whole, the combination described in the specification of the plaintiff's patent; the plaintiff's evidence goes fully to show certain infringements, and that is not met by any explanation on the part of the defendants. Indeed, the defendants' case did not appear to rest on this point at the trial so much as on the important question raised by them, whether the improvement described in the specification was a manufacture within the statute of James? Upon the fourth issue, which raised no more than the usual inquiry-whether the nature of the invention was sufficiently described in the specification-the usual evidence was given, that persons of competent skill and experience could, by following the direction, produce the manufacture described, with success, and this evidence was entirely unopposed; upon this issue, also, the verdict ought to be entered for the plaintiff. With respect, however, to the issue raised in the rejoinder in the plaintiff's replication to the fifth plea, we are of opinion, that taking the whole evidence brought forward by the plaintiff, it is impossible to perceive any substantial or real distinction between the hot-air blast, and the machinery and apparatus described

in Neilson's specification, from that described or referred to in the plaintiff's; or to say that the using by the plaintiff of the invention described in his specification was any other than a using and imitating of the invention described in Neilson's specification. The plaintiff, indeed, worked by licence under Neilson's patent at the time of his discovery: on this fifth issue, therefore, we think the verdict should be entered for the defendants. Then arises the question-whether the plaintiff is or is not entitled to the judgment, notwithstanding the verdict on the fifth issue; on which point the argument on the part of the defendants is, that the taking out a patent for an invention, which invention cannot be used or enjoyed by the public, except by means of the former invention of another person, which former invention is itself the subject-matter of a patent still in force, is void by law. Undoubtedly if the second patent claims, as part of the invention described in it, that which had been the subjectmatter of a patent then in force, it would be void, on the double ground that it claimed that which was not new (which, indeed, would equally be the case if the former patent had expired) and also that it would be an infringement of, and inconsistent with, a former grant of the king still in force, which latter consideration alone would make a new grant void. But in this case there is an express disclaimer of any part of the invention to the use of the hot-air blast, which was covered by Neilson's patent, the specification describing that the application of the hot-air blast was well understood, and extensively applied, in many places where ordinary fuel is employed. The validity, therefore, of the plaintiff's patent cannot be impeached on either of the grounds above aɩlverted to. Unless, therefore, the grantee of the new letterspatent is bound by law to specify whether such former invention which is excepted, was so excepted on the ground of its being generally known and used by the public, and on the ground that it was the subject of a patent, that secured the use of it to a former patentee, the new patent will be good; but that distinction is as much in the knowledge of the public as the grantee of the patent. If, indeed, the new patent had been taken out for improvement or alterations in an invention secured by a former patent, then for obvious reasons greater particularity would be necessary to distinguish the new from the old. But the present specification expressly says " I take the whole of the invention, already well known to the public, and I combine it with something else." Now, it is further argued, that in point of law no patent can be taken out which includes the subject-matter of a patent still running or in force. No authority was cited

to support this proposition; and the case which was before Lord Tenterden, and in which he held that where an action was brought for improvements in a former patent granted to another person, and still in force, that the plaintiff must produce the former patent and specification, that at least affords a strong inference that the second patent was good; Lewis v. Davis, 3d Carrington, and Payne and Harmer v. Payne, 11th East, are clear authorities on the same point; and upon reason and principle there appears to be no objection. The new patent, after the expiration of the old one, will be free from every objection; and whilst the former exists, he new patent can be legally used by the public, by procuring a licence from Neilson, or by purchasing the apparatus from him or some of his agents; and the probability of the refusal of a licence to any one applying for it is so extremely remote, that it cannot enter into consideration as a ground of legal objection. On the whole, therefore, we think the verdict is to be entered for the plaintiff on all the issues except the fifth; that the verdict is to be entered for the defendants on the fifth issue; but that, notwithstanding such verdict, the judgment must be given for the plaintiff.

Court of Queen's Bench.
Westminster, June 16, 17.

(Before Lord Chief Justice Denman and a Special Jury.)

The Queen v. Walton.

This was a scire facias to repeal a patent which the defendant had taken out in 1834 for the application of India rubber to the manufacture of flexible cards for the carding of cotton and other fine wool.

The Solicitor General (with whom were Mr. Thesiger, Mr. R. V. Richards, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Cardwell) appeared upon the part of the Crown, and stated that the alleged invention of Mr. Walton was known as early as the years 1825 and 1826, in the latter of which years Mr. Faraday gave a full explanation of it in a discourse addressed to the Royal Institution, which was afterwards printed in the Journal of Science and Art in the same year. The case of the defendant is, that the proportions of the combination for which he has taken out his patent, as well as the result, efficacy, and utility of the composition, are such as to entitle it to the character of a totally new invention.

Sir T. Wilde, Mr. Sergeant Bompas, and Mr. Addison appeared for the defence.

A great number of witnesses were calledthe case occupying the Court two entire daysafter which the Jury found a verdict for the Crown, thereby annullin the patent.

« ZurückWeiter »