Mr. Sergeant Adair, for the plaintiff, said, that he was the better enabled to state the subject of the dispute thereafter, during the term of years therein expressed, should and lawfully might make, use, exercise, and vend my said invention within that said part of his Majesty's said kingdom of Great Britain called England, his dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and also in his colonies and plantations abroad, in such manner as to me the said Richard Arkwright, my executors, administrators, and assigns, or any of us should in our discretion seem meet; and that I the said Richard Arkwright, my executors, administrators, and assigns, should and lawfully might have and enjoy the whole profit, benefit, commodity, and advantage from time to time coming, growing, accruing, and arising by reason of the said invention, for and during the term of years therein mentioned; to have, hold, exercise, and enjoy the said licence, powers, privileges, and advantage therein before granted, or mentioned to be granted unto me the said Richard Arkwright, my executors, administrators, and assigns, for and during and unto the full end and term of fourteen years from the date of the said presents next and immediately ensuing, and fully to be complete and ended, according to the statute in such case made and provided. In which said letters patent is contained a proviso, that if the said Richard Arkwright should not particularly describe and ascertain the nature of my said invention, and in what manner the same is to be performed, by an instrument in writing under my hand and seal, and cause the same to be enrolled in his said Majesty's High Court of Chancery, within four calendar months next and immediately after the date of the said letters patent, that then the said letters patent and all liberties and advantages whatsoever thereby granted, should utterly cease, determine, and become void, any thing therein before contained to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding; as in and by the said letters patent, relation being thereunto had, may more fully and at large appear. Now know ye, that I the said Richard Arkwright, in compliance with the said proviso, do hereby describe and ascertain the nature of my said invention, and declare that the plan thereof, drawn in the margin of these presents, is composed of the following particulars; (that is to say :) - No. 1, a beater or breaker of seeds, husks, &c., and a finer of the flax, hemp, and other articles which are to be prepared for dressing, in which (a) is a wheel with teeth, which by acting upon a lever, raises the hammer, (c) the lever, being moveable, upon the centre (d). No. 2, an iron frame with teeth at (a), working against a lower frame with like teeth at (b); this lower frame is firmly connected to a wooden frame, by means of the screws (c, c); the upper teeth are made to act against the lower, by means of the joints, (d, d, d, d). No. 3, is a piece of cloth with wool, flax, hemp, or any other such materials spread thereon, as at (a). No. 4, is a crank, and a frame of iron with teeth at (a), being moveable at the joints (b, b, b, b), by means of a crank, and by a cord turning the pulley or wheel (c); this motion of the teeth (a), works them backwards and forwards upon the cylinder, No. 5, and dischargeth the cotton, wool, &c. from it at (d). No. 5, is the last-mentioned cylinder, which hath fillet cards: behind this cylinder, No. 3, delivers its contents upon another cylinder. No. 6, consists of rollers fixed to a wooden frame, the contents of No. 5, being brought to it at (a), and going through at (b), produceth it a proper size (f); (c, c), are brushes

between the parties, because he had been furnished with experience from a former and incomplete discussion of this question in another place, where the decision had been against the plaintiff. The cause in the court where it was before tried was not understood either by the court, the jury, or the counsel, or the witnesses. It was no imputation upon them to say, that in that stage of the business they neither did or could understand the real question to be tried. This patent is granted to Mr. Arkwright as the inventor of certain instruments or machines which would be of public utility in preparing cotton, flax, and wool for spinning. In what is technically called the specification, Mr. Arkwright fully and sufficiently described the invention. In all inventions, that in which this precaution is of least importance to the public, and in which there is the least danger of an invention, once brought into use, being lost, is an invention for ingenious machines, because from the use of them it must necessarily happen, from their being in a number of hands, that if the inventor wished to conceal them from the public, if he had been ever so artful in his specification, in order to prevent the public getting to the knowledge of them, it would not be in his power to do so, for cleaning the machine. No. 7, a cylindrical box for twisting the contents of No. 6, at (b); (a, a), are two rollers, one moving the other, between which the contents of No. 6, passeth into the cylinder (b); (c), is a dead pully fixed to the frame; (d), a cord which passing from the pully (c), moves the rollers (a, a).—(F), a wheel; the movement of which is brought from (F), to No. 10, and is fixed to No. 6. No. 8, a machine for twisting the contents of No. 6, in which (d, d), is a frame of iron; (b), a roller, on which a bobbin, (c), is fixed; this is turned the same as No. 7, that is, by a dead pully, or wheel fixed to a wooden frame, at (g). No. 9, a spindle and flyer, being fixed to No. 6, for twisting the contents from (b), in No. 6.—(d), is a pully under the bobbin, which hath a communication by a band to No. 10, at (d, d), it being a conical or regulating wheel, which moves the bobbin quicker or slower as required. No. 10, a spindle, which being fixed to No. 6, at (a), worketh No. 7, No. 8, or No. 9, at (F, F, F, by the pully, E, (d), a regulator for No. 9.-(b), a socket, having a bolt going through (d, d), and (F, c), to (G), stops or sets the whole going by means of a catch (a), for the pully (G, G), being loose upon the spindle, (o), a lever, moveable about, (k), raiseth or falleth the bolt, (h). In witness whereof, I the said Richard Arkwright, have hereunto set my hand and seal, the tenth day of April, in the sixteenth year of the reign of his said most excellent Majesty, George the Third, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, &c., and in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six. “ RICHARD ARKWRIGHT."

for a machine once introduced and in general use can never be lost; it must, from the use and nature of it, be known at the time the patent expires. It is not, however, contended that a plain and intelligible specification is not in every case necessary. If an ingenious mechanic were to make a new invention in clocks or watches, it would not be incumbent upon him to make a specification intelligible to a common cobbler. The person who is to make from the specification must be acquainted with the construction of watches in use before; and it will be sufficient in the principle of common sense, and to satisfy the requisition of the law, if the specification is sufficient to enable a skilful watchmaker, who knew nothing of the invention but from the specification, to add the improvements to the movements that were before in use. That will explain what was meant by saying that the cause was not understood upon the former trial, because it was not then explained what the principles of the machines in use before this invention were, what effects they produced, and what defects this invention proposed to remedy, and what new effects it produced. There was another source of obscurity and mist which existed at the time of the former trial, which was, that after the granting of the patent, both Mr. Arkwright and those who had infringed, had made several alterations in the form and construction of different parts of the machine, so that the model then produced, which was of the machine then in use in the improved state, exhibited an appearance not perfectly corresponding with the drawings in the specification. In the present case there will be models of the machinery before Mr. Arkwright's patent, then an application of the parts of his invention, made exactly after the specification; and it will be proved that that machine will produce all the effects that are required by this invention. It will also be proved that the machine, in its most improved state, with the advantage of little alterations, is substantially the same as specified. (The learned sergeant then described the various models, and compared the parts with the specification). One objection taken to the specification at a former trial was, that it did not describe in what manner the cotton was to be taken off the cloth; but that being part of the machine before in use, it was not necessary to describe it; and the witnesses, who are mechanics, will say, that when they are told that

No. 3 delivers its contents upon another cylinder, that that is sufficient description to any man who knew the construction of the former machine, to understand that the rollers in the former machine must be retained in use. It was therefore perfectly intelligible to any man who had ever seen the former machine. The two rollers are not specified, no part of the old machine need be specified. The next objection taken at the former trial was, to the cylinder substituted in the place of the old one. The objection was, that if it was worked with parallel cards, the effect would be certain; being spread upon the whole of the web of cloth that discharged it on the other cylinder, there being no card in the intervals between these two fillets of cards, that interval would be choked up with cotton so as to obstruct the movement of the machine, and therefore it was contended, that that description of the specification was imperfect. In answer it is no where said that the cotton is to be spread over the whole of the web, and if it is spread in corresponding fillets, the fillet on the machine will take it off; but they say Mr. Arkwright has departed from this, and has made an improvement upon that cylinder. He has done so by placing the fillet of cards in a spiral line round the cylinder. The spiral fillet is not essential, although it is a better mode of producing the same effect. It would be absurd to say, if the patentee or others were able to alter the form and construction, that the patent is invalid. Every mechanic, when he knows the invention, and the effect to be produced, can alter the machine into fifty shapes; and yet, if he retains the principles, it will produce the same effect, although the machine, to the common eye, would appear totally different. The next machine is for sizing and roving; these parts are described in the specification, and may be worked together or separately, but, in point of fact, they are generally worked separately. They say it is not said that the rollers mentioned in the specification are to be set in motion, or how they are to be set in motion. While the rollers remain without motion, they cannot produce much effect; therefore, no man can suppose that the rollers are to remain at rest. Motion must be given to them. There is no occasion to state the manner; it may be by pulleys and a variety of ways well known to mechanics. But, say they, the degree of velocity of these rollers is not

specified. Look to the drawings. One pair of rollers is larger than the others, consequently the velocity of the larger rollers will be greater than that of the smaller. There remains one objection more, that in the machine produced at the former trial, these rollers were pressed down by weights, and there is nothing about weights in the specification. Now it is not necessary that it should be done by weights, it may be done by having the upper roller heavy enough to produce the effect, or it may be done by a spring. But no mechanic employed to construct a machine, would be so ignorant as not to know that the upper rollers must be pressed down upon the others; therefore that is an objection addressed to children. Another objection is, that the machine when produced, had fluted rollers. The effect of that will be to make them draw more than plain ones; but every mechanic knows that; or if they were not fluted, but made rough, they would produce the same effect; in fact, they are frequently used without being fluted, and if you look to the old machine, you will see that they were in that case fluted. The whole roving machine is new, for this operation was done entirely by hand before. The question will be, whether it is sufficiently described. Mechanics will tell you, that the description is so plain, that any one who has seen the specification, might understand it in a quarter of an hour, and could have made it perfectly. Other parts described in the specification are disused, and therefore are not the subject-matter of the present action, they were different modes of producing the same effect. I do not doubt but you will say that the specification is a sufficient description of these machines. We shall call the first men in the kingdom for ability in the mechanical line, who will tell you, that being informed of the machine formerly in use, and reading the specification, they could direct the construction of the machinery in question. We shall also produce several workmen, who from the specification alone, have made the machine, and that it cannot be contended that it is not sufficiently understood and cannot be constructed.

[Several witnesses were then examined on behalf of the plaintiff, showing that the invention was new, that it was fully described; that they as scientific men, could direct workmen in the making of the machinery from the