seen Gibbs and Gatley's specification, in which there are two saws fixed in one frame, and may be so guided by templates, that curves may be cut in the machine exactly like the template. The frames that support the saws move laterally within the capacity of the machine.

Upon cross examination by Mr. Serjeant Shee, the witness stated, that the plaintiff's dogs might hold a straight futtock of the ordinary length; and a crooked piece might be held by a frame at each end. It might be held by a cross. He would not say that a crooked log could not be sawn by the plaintiff's machine.

A great number of other witnesses were examined, and deposed to the same facts. Among others was Mr. Murray, head engineer of Portsmouth dockyard, who said, that the mechanical arrangements for mounting and working the saw were essentially different in the two machines; and that defendant's mode of turning the saw is best, as, in order to cut rapidly, it is necessary to strain the saw very tight, to the amount of two tons; and he thought, if the saw were tightened up to that extent, it would not be possible to turn the saw by a lever applied direct to the middle of the saw.

Mr. Yongs Porfrey, manager of the patent wheel manufactory, Pimlico, caused much merriment by the manner of giving his evidence. He stated, that he came to be "analyzed,” and he hoped he should be well and strictly "analyzed." He was a practical man, and well acquainted with sawing machinery. He had invented a machine fourteen years ago for cutting curves and bevils. He had examined plaintiff's specification and model to some extent; and had seen defendant's machine in operation at Woolwich. He thought there was great similarity between plaintiff's patent of 1833 and that of 1843. The defendant's mode of mounting and turning the log and saw is quite different from plaintiff's second patent of 1843. The witness laid it down in the most positive manner, that it was impossible to turn the saw with a forked lever, when it was stretched to a tension of 12 cwt., as he had tried to do so and failed. He had made a machine which would cut any bevil or curve that might be required. His object was, to construct a machine applicable for cutting timber for any part of a carriage.

Mr. Gibbs, co-patentee with Mr. Gatley for a machine for cutting staves for casks, explained the construction of his machine. He said, there are two saw frames on a saw-gate, with a sliding lateral motion given to the saws. A machine of this kind was made to exemplify the process, and was placed in the dockyard, but was never worked. The remaining portion of this witness' evidence was but a repetition of that already given. Mr. Robertson, patent agent, produced a volume of the Franklin Journal, which he stated had been in his possession fifteen years. He had never seen another copy of the Franklin Journal.

It contained an account of a machine for cutting furrow-boards; which, it appeared, formed the subject of an American patent; but the description was so vague as to be nearly unintelligible. This witness also produced a number of the London Journal of Arts, containing a description of Alexander Craig's patent, August, 1836, for cutting veneers from a log, by mounting it on centres, and causing it to rotate slowly; while the saw is made to cut a thin veneer (concentrically) from the side of the log. The witness also produced a copy of Isaac Dodd's specification, for cutting irregular shapes in wood. The only point that was noticed in this patent was, that the saw was mounted on pivots, so that it could follow the sinuosities and curves to be cut in the wood; but as the plaintiff laid no claim to this, no notice was taken of the patent.

The defendant's case was concluded by calling several practical men, who had worked his machine, and who deposed as to its utility and efficiency.

Mr. Serjeant Channell then replied upon the whole case.—He said that, after the protracted discussion which had taken place, it was not his intention to take up much of their time; but it was his duty to make a few remarks upon some of the observations that had fallen from his learned friend during the progress of the case. The learned counsel said, he was not instructed to find fault with the defendant's machine; and neither he nor his learned friends who were with him had any wish to depreciate the value of the defendant's invention; in fact, it was part of his case that the defendant's machine would perform its work well; but he contended, that this arose entirely from the defendant having taken all the essential features of the plaintiff's machine, and added to them certain other parts, about the utility of which there appeared to be some doubt in the minds of the scientific gentlemen who had been examined. He, however, had no wish to find fault with the defendant's various contrivances. If they were useful, he was perfectly welcome to them; but he must not (in order to make these contrivances valuable) take the plaintiff's invention as a substratum. Now, the questions the jury would have to consider were, first, was Mr. Junius Smith in possession of the invention when he applied for and obtained his patent. He apprehended there could be no doubt upon that point. Mr. Smith swore he received a communication from the plaintiff; and it was proved the specification had been prepared from that document. The next point to which he would direct attention was, as to the novelty of the invention. Now, what had been brought forward on the other side on this point? Really nothing that was at all material. While on this point, he could not help saying, that he had hardly been fairly treated by his learned friend; for, with the exception of the patent granted to the plaintiff in 1833, which was set out in the pleadings, and to which, therefore, he had an opportunity of directing

the attention of his witnesses, not one single thing had been alluded to by the other side, until the plaintiff's case was closed. Why were not the plaintiff's witnesses asked, whether they knew of such a patent as Gibbs and Gatley's, and the others that had been mentioned? Why bad they been thus taken by surprise?

Mr. Chambers here said, he did not understand how his learned friend could say they were taken by surprise, when, in fact, one of his own witnesses pulled out of his bag a printed description of Gibbs and Gatley's invention.

Mr. Serjeant Channell in continuation said, that, in reference to certain parts of the plaintiff's invention having been in use before the date of his patent, he could not see, from any of the evidence, that the plaintiff's case was at all affected by it. The plaintiff did not claim any of the parts separately;-the specification was perfectly clear upon that point. It was the combination that was claimed; it was the combination of the lateral motion of the saw-frame, with the independent motion of the saw on its axis, that was new and useful; and it was precisely that which the defendant had taken. Now there was nothing of that sort in Gibbs' or any other machine that had been brought forward. And, with respect to mounting and turning the log, the plaintiff did not claim as new mounting a log on centres ;-everybody knew that had been done before; but it was the combination of rotary dogs, clamps, or frames, with an index-bar and guide-bar, whereby the dog may (while being cut) be turned round on an axis, so as to make any required bevil. Now, the defendant in this, as well as in the mode of mounting the saw, had made various changes, and added certain contrivances (the value of which it was not his intention to call in question); but he adhered to the principle of the plaintiff's machine; and, therefore, whether the plaintiff's invention were worth 18. or £10,000, he contended, that the defendant had no right to take it without first satisfying the plaintiff and paying his 1s. The learned counsel proceeded to say, that great efforts had been made to shew that the plaintiff's invention was useless, or nearly so; but he had proved, by the defendant's own hand-writing, that he considered the invention extremely valuable ;—how then could he now come and say that it was useless. On this part of the case he relied almost entirely on the defendant's letters and his admissions ;-the defendant, in fact, was his best witness. The learned counsel concluded an eloquent address by saying, that he left the case with confidence in the hands of the jury; he did not ask for heavy damages-that was not the plaintiff's object; he only asked for such nominal damages as would carry costs and affirm the plaintiff's patent.

The Chief Baron, in summing up, went through the whole of the evidence, with great minuteness and care. He said, the jury must not be astonished at the apparently contradictory nature of the evidence of the scientific gentlemen, as those gentlemen had

their own way of looking at these matters; he, however, congratulated the jury upon having had an opportunity of witnessing the operation of both models, and seeing pieces of wood cut by them; they could, therefore, judge for themselves, and that was always the best way when it could possibly be done. The learned Chief Baron said, that the defendant complained he had not had an opportunity of seeing the plaintiff's machine, while the plaintiff had ample opportunities of seeing his. He thought this was certainly unfortunate, and, to a certain extent, wrong; but then it must be recollected that the defendant could examine the plaintiff's specification. On the other hand, the plaintiff complained of being kept in the dark, as to the nature of the evidence the defendant intended to bring forward; and said he was taken by surprise at the patents that were, one after the other, brought against him. He (the learned judge) did not think they greatly affected the case, and, as far as the question of surprise was concerned, he thought it might be taken as a set off for not allowing defendant to see plaintiff's machine. The learned judge_concluded by submitting to the jury the following questions:-First, whether Mr. Smith was sufficiently possessed of the invention at the time he took out the patent; secondly, whether the machine was independent of, and substantially different from, one of a similar character patented in 1833; thirdly, whether the invention was new and useful; and, fourthly, whether the defendant had borrowed any portion of plaintiff's invention.

The jury retired, but were not absent more than five minutes, when they returned, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff on all the points submitted to them, with 40s. nominal damages.

LIST OF REGISTRATIONS EFFECTED UNDER THE ACT FOR PRO-
TECTING NEW AND ORIGINAL DESIGNS FOR ARTICLES OF
UTILITY.

1848.

July 28. John Phillips, of Warwick-street, Belgrave-square, for
an improved syphon trap.

29. John Joseph Hussey, of Hertford-street, Fitzroy-square,
carpenter, &c., for a portable meat-screen.

Aug. 1. Samuel Ward, of 18, Lowther Arcade, Strand, for a
spring-clip for candlesticks or candle-holders.

1. John Rock Day, of Birmingham, and Job Clark, of
Willenhall, for a bolt or fastening.

1. George Harborow, of 340, Holborn Bars, London, for
a pair of braces.

2. John Smith, of Bradford, Yorkshire, flour machine ma-
nufacturer, for a corn-mill cylinder brush.

3. William Procter Stanley, of Peterborough, and John
Medworth, of Crown-street, Walworth, London, for
a farmer's steaming apparatus.

Aug. 4. Thomas Burnham Clark, of 6, Laurence Pountney-lane, London, for a direction label.

5. John Brown, of 167, Western Bank, Sheffield, for a conical spring for railway-carriages, made of round, square, oval, hexagon, or octagon steel.

5. John Robert Grover, of 4, Castle-street, Holborn, for a new design for the shape or configuration of sheets of letter-paper.

7. Thomas Porter, of 94, Strand, for a shirt.

8. Thomas Dismore, of Liverpool, for a tassel fastener for brooches, clasps, or buttons.

8. Charles Twigg, of Birmingham, for a sewn-through shank papier-maché button.

8. Robinson & Russell, of Millwall Works, Poplar, for a wrought-iron wheel for railway-carriages.

9. D. G. Wertheimber, of South-street, Finsbury, London, for an artificial leech.

9. Cornelia Smith, of Crewe, Cheshire, for a female elastic supporting band.

11. James Lamb Hancock, of Coed-y-lade, Montgomeryshire, for a frame for a carpet or other bag.

14. Welch, Margetson, & Co., of 134, Cheapside, London,
for the back of a pair of braces.

14. John Whitehead, of Preston, for a tile machine.
15. John West, of 27, Church-street, Lambeth, and John
Henry West, of Lant-place, Southwark, for a moon
or globe for gas or other lights.

16. John Warner & Sons, of 8, Crescent, Cripplegate, Lon-
don, brass-founders, &c., for an improved beer-engine.
17. Abraham Bettridge & Co., of Birmingham, for a pen-
holder.

17. Richard Burrows, of Ruddington, Nottinghamshire, farmer, for an improved regulating apparatus or stopgauge for scufflers, drags, rakes, and other similar farming implements.

17. Lynch & English, of Manchester, engineers, for an hydrostatic indicator or pressure-gauge.

18. William Day, of 46, King William-street, London Bridge, for an improved beer-tap.

21. Robert Weare, of Birkenhead, for a galvanic diffuser. 22. Shaw Thewlis & Peter Griffith, of Phoenix File and Tool Works, Warrington, for a cheese-press.

22. James Campbell, of Beak-street, Regent-street, winemerchant, for a champagne and aerated water fountain-tap, for drawing off the contents of bottles without taking out the cork.

22. Thomas Spicer Dismore & George Dismore, of 11, Clerkenwell-green, London, for an improved waistband