necessary quantity of zinc by this process, it is more expensive. It is equally evident that brass of very good quality, with the addition of zinc requisite to make the proper proportion of copper and zinc, will likewise roll hot, and answer the purpose, but is again a more expensive mode.

"But, whereas I claim as my invention the manufacture of metal plates or sheets, for the purpose aforesaid, of an alloy of copper and zinc in such proportions as will enable the manufacturer to roll the said alloy while at a red heat into sheets fit for the sheathing of ships or other such vessels, and which will be sufficiently ductile to dress close to the bottoms of the said vessels, at the same time that it is more durable than the copper sheathing now in use, and oxidates sufficiently to keep the said bottoms clean."

The bill filed October 25, 1840, by the plaintiff and Messrs. Grenfell, prayed for an injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's patent.

The plaintiffs charged "that the invention for which the said letters patent were granted does not consist in the mere manufacture of metal or brass in the ordinary mode by the alloy of zinc and copper in such proportions as will alone effect such purpose of metal plates which may be rolled into sheets at a red heat, and thereby rendered applicable for the sheathing of ships and vessels." And further, "that brass made in the ordinary mode, or in any other mode than by an alloy in the proportions stated in the said specification, is not and cannot be made applicable to the sheathing of ships and vessels, inasmuch as the same cannot be rolled excepting when cold, which, added to its oxidating too fast, gives it no advantage over copper."

Motion for an injunction was now made, supported by an affidavit from Mr. Muntz as to the originality of the patent. The defendants filed affidavits in opposition, in which they stated that they had long before the patent manufactured brass sheets within the proportions specified in the patent, but that they rolled them cold. Mr. Muntz, in his affidavit in reply, stated "that he did not claim, nor ever pretended to claim, the manufacture of brass or pinchbeck in the pro

portion of sixty per cent. of copper to forty per cent. of zinc applied to ordinary purposes, or any proportions otherwise than and except the application for the sheathing of ships."

SHADWELL, V. C., said that although he would not then put any construction on the patent, it was impossible not to see that the rolling hot was a material feature in the invention; and as the defendants did not roll hot, he would not grant the injunction, but would leave the plaintiff to his action.

Injunction refused.

PERRY v. MITCHELL.

Exchequer, Mich. T., 1840.

(1 Web. P. C. 269.)

In what Cases Particulars of Infringement will be ordered.

Motion to require plaintiff to deliver particulars of infringement.

This was an action for the infringement of two letters patent, of January 28, 1832, and November 19, 1833, for improvement in pens, and the specification set forth and described thirteen different pens, containing an indefinite number of slits and adjustments. The declaration assigned as breaches the making, etc., pens and nibs, in imitation of parts of the said invention, with divers additions thereto and subtractions therefrom.

Petersdorf, for the defendant, on affidavit of the above circumstances, and that inasmuch as neither the parts nor the additions or subtractions were mentioned, it would be impossible to prepare the notice of objections to be delivered with the pleas, or to know what evidence to adduce, obtained a rule calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the plaintiff should not deliver particulars in writing of the in

fringements on which it was intended to rely, and specify and point out the particular pens shown in the drawings annexed to the specification, in respect of which such infringements had taken place.

Pollock showed cause, and cited Crofts v. Peach (2 ante, p. 247).

The court made the rule absolute, and ordered the plaintiff to give particulars by the number of the pens on which infringements were alleged. The following notice was given accordingly: "The pens to which the declaration in this cause refers, and the numbers of such pens in the specifications referred to in the declaration, are as follows" (setting forth the numbers and figures of the diagrams).

Mr. Webster, commenting upon this and the preceding cases, says (1 Web. P. C. 269, note): "It should be remarked that the applications are not in pursuance of any statute, but to the general jurisdiction of the court."

Re SHARP'S PATENT.

Chancery, M. R., Dec. 22, 1840.

(1 Web. P. C. 641.)

Memorandum of Alterations under 5 and 6 Will. IV. c 83, s. 1. Jurisdiction to amend Memorandum.

The Master of the Rolls has no jurisdiction to remove from the records of the Court of Chancery a memorandum of alterations of the specification, enrolled under 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 83, s. 1.

Except for the purpose of correcting mere verbal or clerical errors proved to have arisen from mistake or inadvertence, the Master of the Rolls has no authority to make any alteration in the enrolment of the patent or of the specifi cation.

If the memorandum goes beyond the act (above) it is void, and cannot be given in evidence or made any use of.

Petition to correct a memorandum of alterations of a specification enrolled under 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 83, s. 1, by J. Sharp.

This was an application on behalf of J. Wordsworth, made to the Master of the Rolls, as Keeper of the Records of the Court of Chancery, to remove from the rolls of that court a memorandum of alteration, which had been duly enrolled under the authority of the fiat of the SolicitorGeneral, according to the provisions of the statute 5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 83, s. 1.

Letters patent, dated October 8, 1836, had been granted to John Sharp, of Dundee, for "certain machinery for converting ropes into tow, and certain improvements in certain machinery for preparing hemp or flax for spinning; parts of which improvements are also applicable to the preparing of cotton, wool and silk for spinning." The specification was duly enrolled April 8, 1837. In the same year Mr. Sharp obtained letters patent for Scotland for the same invention. On May 31, 1838, letters patent were granted to the petitioner Joshua Wordsworth for "improvements in machinery for heckling and dressing flax, hemp and other fibrous materials," the specification under which was duly enrolled November 30, 1838.

On August 18, 1838, a petition was presented to Sir R. M. Rolfe, Her Majesty's Solicitor-General, for leave to enter a memorandum of alteration in the specification of Mr. Sharp's English patent. The Solicitor-General ordered advertisements to be inserted in the Gazette and two London papers, and in a Scotch newspaper circulating in the neighborhood of the residence of the patentee; which, having been done on September 8, he granted the fiat for enrolling the said memorandum of alteration, which was enrolled accordingly on September 20, 1838.

The petitioner alleged that certain portions of the said memorandum of alteration described a new machine or arrangement of machinery, and extended the exclusive right granted by the letters patent, and was in substance the same machinery as had been invented by the petitioner and described in the specification of his patent; and prayed that such portions might be expunged from the said memorandum of alteration and the rolls of the court.

Russell applied for an order ex parte, as on the default

of the respondent, and tendered an affidavit of service of a copy of the petition on the respondent in Scotland, and submitted that this being a case under the new act was without precedent; and unless such service were accepted, there could be no means of serving parties out of the jurisdiction of the court.

Lord LANGDALE, M. R. That might be a very good ground for an application for substituted service, but not for such service as has been made. Have the respondents employed no agent in London, in preparing and filing the memorandum, on whom service might be ordered? Is not the memorandum void if, as the petitioner contends, it exceeds the limits of the act; and what more can the petitioner want?

Russell. The existence of the memorandum upon the rolls of the court gives the party a prima facie right, which is a grievance to the petitioner and others, who ought not to be driven to a more expensive remedy. The court has power over its records, and has been in the habit of exercising jurisdiction over any alterations in them; the present is a corruption of the rolls of the court.

Lord LANGDALE, M. R. You have a plain and easy remedy elsewhere. If the memorandum goes beyond the act, as you say, it is void, and could not be given in evidence or made any use of. If it was a specification under the old law, what jurisdiction should I have to take it off the roll? If I were to decide that this memorandum is void, and to order it to be taken off the roll, and it turned out that it was not so, what situation would the patentee be in? I might be depriving him of his patent. I apprehend I have no discretion about receiving a memorandum when it has been sanctioned by the Attorney or SolicitorGeneral; and therefore how could I make an order which would have the effect of depriving a patentee of his rights under the act? At all events, I can make no order on the present service.

On a subsequent day, on affidavits stating who had acted as agents in this country for the patentee, an order was obtained for amending the petition, and that personal service