Then the next question that you have to determine is whether it was a new invention as to the public use and exercise thereof. That, again, involves the two propositions I mentioned before; first, whether the article sold before was of such a nature as to embody in it the principle and valuable qualities of Walton's article. If it was not of such a nature, then there is nothing to impeach the plaintiff's claim; if it was of such a nature, then there follows this question, whether it was a new invention as to the public use and exercise thereof. And in determining that question, I beg you to bear in mind those opinions I have read as having fallen from other judges, rather than state to you any opinion of my own. With respect to the third plea, that the invention was not nor is a new manufacture, as far as that involves the question whether it can be considered as within the statute, that is a question for the court, which I have already determined. As far as it depends upon the question of utility, that is a question for you. Then the fourth is whether the plaintiff in his specification particularly described and ascertained the nature of the invention and the manner in which the same was to be produced. That again is for you, bearing in mind the evidence which has been given as to the power of a competent workman to work from the specification which has been put in. As to the fifth plea, whether these top cards and sheet cards were principally used for the purpose of carding, and whether this invention was unfitted for them, that also is for you; and I think the defendant ought to make out both parts of that proposition, for both are put in issue. They must make out both that top cards and sheet cards were principally used, and that Mr. Walton's alleged invention was insufficient and inapplicable to those purposes.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

The same patent was sustained in Walton v. Potter (ante, pp. 162, 318). Scire facias was subsequently brought, however, to annul the Walton patent, and upon the evidence heretofore adduced in the cases above mentioned, with some additional facts, the patent was declared void for want of novelty. See Queen v. Walton, post, Trin. V., 1842.

SANDIFORD v. NEILD.

Queen's Bench, Trin. V., 1842.

(1 Web. P. C. 311, note.)

Infringement. Novelty. Proper form of Verdict.

Action for infringement.

The defendants, who were calico printers, were using a particular method of arrangement of the pattern on the blocks, whereby they were enabled to print a complicated pattern of several colors, the cloth to be printed being advanced each impression of the block by some portion, as one sixth of the width of the block. The defendants were charged with infringing the plaintiff's patent, both in respect of the arrangement of the pattern and the advancing the cloth (or block) by spaces less than the whole width of the block.

The defendants (among other pleas) denied the infringement and the novelty of the invention, at least so far as it related to the alleged infringement. They also pleaded that the parts in respect to which the infringement was alleged were not in themselves the subject-matter of letters patent.

A verdict for the defendants was rendered on the issue of novelty, the rest of the case not having been submitted to the jury by the court.

Kelly and Webster contended that the defendants were also entitled to have the verdict on the general issue entered for them, both on the ground of the above verdict and assuming that the parts in respect of which the infringement was charged were not the subject-matter.

Pollock, Attorney-General, Hill and Crompton urged that it was no less an infringement, however invalid the patent, whether from want of novelty or the invention not being the subject-matter of letters patent.

Lord DENMAN, C. J., directed a verdict for the plaintiff

on the issue of not guilty, and the jury were discharged on the other issues.

QUEEN v. WALTON.

Queen's Bench, Trin. V., 1842.

(1 Web. P. C. 626, note.)

Novelty. Evidence from a Scientific Journal.

James Walton's patent for improvements in cards for carding wool and other fibrous substances declared void for want of novelty.

Scire facias to annul patent.

The patent of James Walton is described in Walton v. Potter (ante, p. 162). The evidence adduced of prior user included the patents of Thomas Hancock, produced at the trials of Walton v. Potter (ante, p. 162) and Walton v. Bateman (ante, p. 418). In addition the following passage from the Journal of the Royal Institution, vol. 21, p. 131, published in 1826, was relied on:

"The members held their first weekly meeting at half-past eight o'clock. In the lecture-room were exhibited a great variety of specimens of caoutchouc or elastic gum in all its states, from the uncoagulated crude sap of the tree to that of perfect purity and aggregation, and also as united to various fabrics, producing a variety of strong, flexible and perfectly water-tight materials, some being of extreme delicacy, and others of great thickness and strength. These were furnished by Mr. Thomas Hancock, who has had peculiar opportunities of manipulating with this substance, and possesses the knowledge of a process by which it can be rendered fluid, and yet retain the power of hardening and assuming its elastic state again. Mr. Farraday explained the nature of caoutchouc, and gave the results of an analysis of the unchanged sap. The various specimens of cotton, silk, linen, leather, felt, woollen, etc., which were upon the table, had been rendered water-tight by the inter

vention of a layer of caoutchouc between two layers of the fabric, as, for instance, cotton or silk, and the adhesion was so perfect that the substance seemed but as one web. The perfect retention of water by these substances was shown by a calico bag, into which a quart of water had been introduced and the opening closed up; not a drop or particle of moisture could be perceived on the exterior, though the bag was much handled and pressed.

"When several folds of calico, linen or canvas were cemented together by this substance, a material was produced answering many of the purposes of leather, and surpassing it in value in numerous applications. Its use in the construction of the connecting bands for machinery and card fillets has been tried and approved of.

"In consequence of the manner in which the caoutchouc is applied, no limit occurs as to the form or size, or delicacy or strength, of the, water-tight vessels or things which may be made; it is equally applicable to the cloak and the caravan cover, to the most ornamented flower-vase and the strongest water-bucket."

There was a verdict for the Crown on the issues of novelty.

The Court of Queen's Bench granted a rule nisi for a new trial, but the rule was not argued, a compromise having been made whereby all proceedings in Walton v. Bateman (above) and in some other actions were stayed.

CRANE v. PRICE.

Common Pleas, June 13, 1842.

(1 Web. P. C. 377.)

Meaning of "Manufacture." "True and First Inventor." Questions of Law and Fact.

The meaning of the word "manufacture" is a question of law—as whether the application of a known mode of working, when applied to a known purpose, is a manufacture.

So also whether the application of this knowledge makes the introducer the first and true inventor.

Any combination in the subject-matter of a patent, if the result be new, or a better or a cheaper article.

An invention, consisting in no more than the use of things already known, and acting with them in a way already known, and producing effects already known, but producing those effects so as to be more economically or beneficially enjoyed by the public, is properly the subject-matter of a patent.

If the invention be new and useful to the public, whether it is the result of long experiments and profound research, or has been reached by some sudden and lucky thought or mere accidental discovery, is not material.

It is no objection to the validity of a patent that the invention cannot be used except by means of a former patented invention, where the second patentee expressly disclaims any part of such former invention.

A patent for an improvement in the manufacture of iron by the application of anthracite or stone coal and culm, combined with the using of the hot-air blast in the smelting and manufacture of iron from iron stone, mine or ore, held a new invention.

Crane's patent for an improvement in the manufacture of iron, granted September 28, 1836, sustained.

Special case on judge's notes at the trial.

The action was brought for infringement, and trial had February 12, 1840.

The patent was granted September 28, 1836, numbered 7,195, to George Crane, for "an improvement in the manufacture of iron."

The specification was as follows:

According to the ordinary practice of obtaining iron from iron stone, mine or ore in this country, the iron stone, mine or ore, either calcined or in the raw state, according to its respective qualities, is put into suitable furnaces with coke produced from bituminous coal, formerly called pit coal, in contradistinction to charcoal produced from wood, which was the fuel employed in this country previous to the introduction of pit coal in the smelting and manufacture of iron. Now, as there are districts in which are to be found large quantities of iron stone, mine or ore in the immediate neighborhood of what is known as stone coal or anthracite coal, it has long been considered as a desirable object to employ such coal for the smelting and manufacture of iron; and although attempts have been made to