an order had been given to the defendant for the construction of the machine at Woolwich, and it was set up in February, 1848. This machine, as well as another of a different construction, had been paid for, but the machine had not yet been sufficiently tested to enable them to decide upon its value. The amount paid for the two machines was £2,400.

Mr. Green, a mechanic, who had worked the plaintiff's machine for some time, proved that it was a useful and efficient machine, and worked with great ease: he had seen the defendant's machine at Woolwich, when the saw had become so heated, by cutting a log, that he seriously burnt his fingers by touching it, after the sawing operation had been completed.

Mr. Middleton, of the firm of Middleton, Varrell, and Elwell, engineers and machine-makers, of Paris, proved that the plaintiff had built one of his improved sawing machines at his establishment, in Paris; that the defendant was there also, superintending the construction of a pile-driving machine; and that defendant had ample opportunities of seeing plaintiff's machine, while being constructed. Letters were put in, written by the defendant to this witness, from Toulon, after he had seen plaintiff's machine at work there, stating that he was much pleased with it, and that it had “astonished the natives;" that he knew nothing of ship-building, or of the machine, until he had seen it at work; that it performed admirably, and only wanted a few alterations, in capacity only, to make it equal to do any work that might be required.

Some other witnesses were examined, to shew the utility of the plaintiff's invention; and the model of his machine having been shewn to the jury, and the various portions of it described to them, this concluded the case for the plaintiff.

Mr. Chambers addressed the jury at considerable length, on behalf of the defendant, and went into an elaborate detail of the invention,—a beautiful working model of the defendant's machine having been produced in court for that purpose. The learned counsel, after having explained, with the assistance of the model, the construction and operation of the defendant's machine, and pointed out those parts which were considered to render it superior to the plaintiff's invention, said, he should be able to shew, by the witnesses he intended to examine, not only that the defendant's machine was no infringement upon the plaintiff's patent, and that it was substantially different in all its principal features, but that the plaintiff's machine was extremely defective and incomplete, and, in fact, could not be rendered of any utility, commercially speaking, without the addition of the various contrivances introduced by the defendant in his machine; he should also shew, that the plaintiff's invention was not new, and that all its principal features were known before the date of his patent, and were, in fact, borrowed from prior patentees. The rotation of the log on its axis, a point on which the plaintiff

1

laid so much stress, was, in fact, described and claimed by him in a prior patent, granted in 1833, and had, therefore, now become public property. The plaintiff could not, therefore, now come and set up a claim for that, but must confine himself to his particular mode of mounting the log on dogs, with pins or studs on their face, and causing it to rotate on its axis by means of a lever connected to a guide-bar. The learned counsel said, he should shew that the defendant mounted and worked his log in a very different and much more efficient manner. The defendant firmly held the log by each end, in a pair of clamps, as in a vice; these clamps being made moveable sideways, so that when a very curved or crooked log was to be cut, the log might be equally balanced, and the machine thereby prevented from being strained. The defendant had also, in his machine, a means of supporting the log while being cut, by employing what he termed an oscillating rolling rest: he should shew that this was a most necessary and beautiful contrivance, the absence of which from the plaintiff's machine rendered it comparatively useless for cutting very crooked logs. The next point upon which the plaintiff laid great stress was, mounting the saw in an inner saw-frame, and giving it a lateral motion within the outer gate. Now, he should shew that the defendant did not mount his saw in a frame; but that it was, in fact, only the bow-saw mounted in the ordinary saw-gate. It was necessary, he apprehended, for a frame to have top, bottom, and sides; whereas, the defendant's saw was attached at top and bottom to two levers, whose fulcra were placed in a long vertical bar,-their opposite ends being connected together by an adjustable tie-rod, whereby the saws might be stretched to the required tension. The defendant had also a very beautiful contrivance for guiding the saw, by means of a parallel motion, which was connected to the saw both at top and bottom. This was essentially different from the manner in which the plaintiff guided his saw; and it would be shewn by the witnesses to be a much better plan. With respect to the lateral motion of the saw, so as to cut curves, he should be able to shew the jury that that was not a new invention, as the same thing had been done many years ago, and, in fact, formed the subject of a patent granted to Messrs. Gibbs and Gatley. He should call Mr. Gibbs before them; and he would tell them, that his machine, in which this principle was embodied, was employed for cutting wood in curved lines; and, although he did not certainly allude to cutting ship-timbers, as that was not the object he at first had in view, yet there could be no doubt that a machine upon the same plan might be made to cut timber of any size. The learned counsel concluded a long and eloquent address, by stating, that he should be able to prove that the defendant's was a most valuable and useful invention, and had been highly approved of by the authorities in the dockyard; that it was substantially different from the plaintiff's machine, and was much superior to it in operation,

VOL. XXXIII.

R

inasmuch as it would cut two sides of a piece of timber at one time; and that the bevils on the log might be altered, when required, without stopping the action of the saw,-an operation which could not be effected with the plaintiff's machine; and which therefore, he submitted, must be altogether different in construction. The learned counsel then proceeded to call a great number of witnesses to speak to the utility and advantage of the defendant's machine, its superiority over the plaintiff's invention, and to prove that the two inventions were substantially different in principle.

cut.

The first witness called was Mr. Jordan, the inventor of the patent carving machine, who stated, that he was well acquainted with the defendant's machine, and had seen and examined a model of it, but had not seen a model of the plaintiff's machine until yesterday. He had not seen the plaintiff's machine in a working state, but had examined Junius Smith's specification ; the mode of mounting the timber, therein described, was similar to that of mounting a log in the common lathe; the plaintiff had twó modes of turning the log,-one is rather complicated, and consists in mounting the log on rotary dogs, one of which is connected to an apparatus, consisting of a gauge-bar and an indexbar, whereby the log is turned. The witness exhibited a model of this apparatus, made, as he stated, from the plaintiff's specification. The other mode of turning the log was, by making an index-bar run along a guide-bar, as in the working model exhibited by the plaintiff. The witness said, there was no mode described in the plaintiff's specification of holding the log steadily between the two chucks, or of supporting the log while being A weighted lever is mentioned, but the witness did not think it a good mode, as the lever would have a tendency to turn the log in the chucks,—the supporting lever has its fulcrum on the travelling bed. The plaintiff has nothing but points or pins on his chucks, but he mentions that he sometimes uses clamps or frames. The mode of sliding the dogs laterally does not affect the balance of the log. Large pieces of oak are very heavy, and when crooked, unless they are supported, they will strain the dogs. In ordinary saw-mills, the logs are supported by rollers : the plan described by plaintiff, of supporting the log by means of a weighted lever, is not a good one, as it would tend to increase the vibration. There are many differences, of great importance, between the plaintiff's and defendant's machines:-1st, instead of pins, or dogs, or chucks, the defendant uses clamps to hold the log;—a model of the clamp, used by the defendant, was produced and explained by the witness. It appeared that the upper jaw was made moveable, so as to admit various sizes of timber; it is also made to turn sideways; the lower jaw is placed on a level with the axis, about which the log turns; the log is not placed entirely above the line of the axis of the chuck, but the great mass of the log is above the axis. The witness explained

i

that, by axis, he meant an imaginary line drawn through the centre of the axletree. There is an excentric slide on each of the chucks in Mr. Cochran's machine,-the chucks need not, therefore, be opposite each other; the object of this is very important, it is to balance the log, and the effect is, so to balance the log that its weight has no tendency to derange or strain the machine: there is nothing of this kind in the plaintiff's machine. The support for the timber the defendant calls an oscillating rolling rest; the upper surface of this support is always in the same plane as the upper surface of the clamp. The log in the defendant's machine is turned by tangent screws and rack-wheels ; the means of turning the log are substantially different in defendant's machine from those specified by the plaintiff, although in each plan the log is turned by means of levers and bars. The sawgate, which, in the plaintiff's machine, moves the saw up and down, is of the same construction as the ordinary saw-gate, but the inner frame is different, as ordinary saw-mills have no inner frame: when this inner saw-frame is taken from the machine, it is similar in construction to ordinary saw-frames ;-the defendant's frame is quite different from the plaintiff's-the defendant's is not a frame properly so called. The defendant's plan of mounting a bow-saw in a saw-gate is slightly different from the plaintiff's; the defendant uses antifriction rollers, which is an important improvement; and he does not turn his saw in the same way as the plaintiff. The defendant's plan is essential to the success of the invention; as, when saws are strained tight, they cannot be turned without the defendant's contrivance. In order to change the rate of bevil in defendant's machine, it is not necessary to stop the machine. The witness then stated, that he had read the specification of Mr. Hamilton's patent of 1833, and had carefully examined the part referring to sheet B, which was precisely the same in principle as Smith's plan for cutting bevils. In defendant's machine the log turns about an axis, not on an axis; it does so also in Hamilton's first patent. In both the defendant's patent and plaintiff's first patent the log lies above the axis about which it turns. In plaintiff's first patent the log is turned by a lever or rack-wheel, and the machine would, no doubt, cut curvilinear lines and bevils; and, if made sufficiently long, would cut ships' futtocks, although, perhaps, not in a profitable and practically useful manner. In both of plaintiff's patents the log is turned to cut the bevil, and the principle is the same in both, although the mechanical means of carrying it out are somewhat different. The defendant's mode of turning the log more nearly resembles the plaintiff's first patent than the second. The witness also said that he had examined Gibbs and Gatley's patent for cutting staves for casks. This machine has saws, mounted on frames separate from the saw-gate; two saws are employed, and a lateral motion is communicated to the saw and frame by means of springs and guides or templates, attached

to the bed of the machine; the springs are used to connect them together, and, although the saws may be turned while they are cutting, yet they do not have a motion independent of the frame, but are made to turn with it; the saws and their frames are forced outwards by the springs and inwards by the guides. The witness did not think that timber could be cheaply, expeditiously, and accurately cut, by means of this machine, for shipbuilding purposes.

Upon being cross examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee, the witness said he had seen defendant's machine at work; the model on the table was constructed on the same principle, and the model produced of the clamp is the same as those used in defendant's machine. He also said that, in his opinion, the other model on the table fairly represented Mr. Hamilton's first patent machine he had never seen Gibbs' machine at work :-in the latter the saws are placed in frames; but the saw has no independent motion in the frame. There would, in witness' opinion, be no difficulty in cutting curves of any shape;~he could cut a curve and a straight in the machine at the same time.

Mr. Alexander Gordon, civil engineer, stated, that he had set out timber for ship-building purposes; he had also set up sawmills and other improved machinery. He had read J. Smith's specification, and seen defendant's machine in practical operation at Woolwich dockyard; had also read and examined Mr. Hamilton's specification of 1834, and made notes of the points of difference between plaintiff's and defendant's machines. Is of opinion that plaintiff's machine could not be used to commercial advantage. The plaintiff's and defendant's machines are substantially different. Does not think that the plaintiff could cut a pair of bevils on a log held as shewn in his machine. The witness stated, that with defendant's machine he could do, in one hour, the same amount of work as the plaintiff, with his machine, could do in four hours. He also said, that he thought plaintiff's machine would cut midship-timbers very well; but doubted whether it could cut futtocks. The oscillating roller-rest is a great improvement, and is peculiar to defendant's machine. The witness said, that the plaintiff's plan of supporting the log, by means of a weighted lever, was useless; and he would rather be without it. There is a great difference between defendant's and plaintiff's plan of making the bevil. The defendant has a guidebar and index-bar; and he makes the bevil by causing the indexbar, in connection with the dog or clamp, to follow the index-bar. The witness stated, that he knew that the defendant's mode of guiding the saw succeeds; but much doubted whether the plaintiff's plan would effect the intended purpose. He considered defendant's machine a great improvement upon Mr. Hamilton's first patent; and that it differs essentially from plaintiff's plan of 1843. Mr. Hamilton's first and second patents are essentially different from each other. The witness then said, that he had

1