made. Shorter described his invention to consist of two curved blades, which it was admitted were similar to Lowe's, which were described as being similar to the sails of a windmill. Mr. Carpmael admitted that the sails of a horizontal windmill, such as were at Battersea and Margate, if extended, would make a perfect screw. These admissions would be found most useful in considering Bramah's patent, in the specification of which he suggested that fans might be made in precisely the same way as Lowe's and Shorter's. With respect to Ericsson's, all that could be said was, that Lowe had stripped it of some incumbrances, and thereby made it more simple and less expensive. It was admitted that the internal parts of Ericsson's were similar to Lowe's. Now, suppose Lowe had been the first inventor, and had made precisely what Ericsson did, with the exception of the hoop and the curved blades, would that have been an infringement of Ericsson's patent? Mr. Beal said the hoop made no substantial difference. Then why not do equal justice when Ericsson's had preceded Lowe's, and give Ericsson an action against Lowe for using his invention without the hoop, if Lowe was to be entitled to an action against Ericsson for infringing his patent with the addition of an hoop? Then, with respect to Cummerow's patent, which was an entire turn of a screw.-After Lowe's patent, if Cummerow had taken off the smallest part of the screw, could it be contended that it was a violation of Lowe's patent? There was distinct proof that all that had been done by Lowe was done by others long before. Bramah's drawing shewed an entire wheel; but he said in his specification, that instead of that wheel, there might be introduced a wheel similar to the fan of a smoke-jack or the sails of a windmill. He believed that a smoke-jack, if extended, would make a screw, though not a perfect one; and there was distinct evidence that it would be so with the sails of a windmill. Bramah's patent, therefore, was precisely the same as Lowe's. He contended that the specification was void for ambiguity. There was nothing to shew the portion of a screw contended for, or most beneficial to be employed. On the whole, this appeared to him to be one of the most extraordinary claims to an invention ever heard of; for he should prove, that not only was there no novelty, as, indeed, was admitted, in the parts of which it was composed, but that the combination itself had been actually employed long before the patent. He was sure, therefore, that when the jury had heard this evidence they would find a verdict for the defendant. Patents were then put in obtained by Joseph Bramah, May 9, 1785; Edward Shorter, Feb. 4, 1800; Richard Trevethick, June 6, 1815; Charles Cummerow, Dec. 10, 1828; B. Woodcroft, March 22, 1832; P. P. Smith, May 31, 1836; with a disclaimer, May 4, 1839; and by John Ericsson, July 13, 1836. Elijah Galloway, on being examined, said, he was a civil engineer; had been in the profession about twenty-four years, and applied himself a great deal to the propelling of steam-vessels, and to the patents bearing on that subject. Witness had examined the plaintiff's specification and the drawing attached to it. It shews a portion of a screw, but defectively, and, by the drawing, it appears about a sixteenth. Had seen Mr. Penn's model; it is about a seventh or eighth. He thought a seventh would be better than a sixteenth. Witness had examined Mr. Shorter's specification; he describes his as being like the sails of a windmill. Had also examined Cummerow's patent and the specification. The drawings shew less than a whole turn; the specification describes the mode of working a whole turn ;-had examined Mr. Ericsson's patent; the centre portion of the hoop, the supporting arms, as they may be called, propel the vessel. If the blades of that centre portion were extended, they would become entire screws. That propeller was to work below the water mark. Witness saw one of those, as it now is, once employed in 1837. He also saw two vessels in which that propeller was set up; they were the Ogden and the Stockton. The blades outside the hoops, if extended, would also make perfect screws. The hoop he considered was introduced for strength only. There is no difference whatever in principle between that and Mr. Lowe's patent. Witness had examined Mr. Bramah's patent. He describes his invention to be like the fly of a smoke-jack or the verticle sails of a windmill. Each of the sails of a windmill, where properly made and extended, would make a screw. The model exhibited is made according to one made in his specification. Witness could not see the slightest difference between it and Mr. Lowe's patent. Mr. Lowe's specification is general as to the position. Mr. Cummerow places it in the dead-wood. He did not think a competent shipwright would have had extraordinary difficulty in fitting Bramah's or Cummerow's patent to a vessel, without shifting the rudder. Mr. Cubitt, civil engineer.-Has had great experience in the construction of windmills. He took out a patent for them about 20 years ago. Sails properly formed would produce a four threaded screw. Mr. George Cottom, a manufacturing engineer.-Had read the specifications of the several patents above alluded to, and in substance repeated the evidence of Mr. Galloway, as far as that tended to the similarity between Lowe's patent and those of prior date. of Mr. Lloyd, a civil engineer, employed by government in the Woolwich dockyard.-Had studied the subject of screw propellers. He went by desire of the government to inspect the screw on board the Archimedes. The Rattler was built in consequence the success of the Archimedian screws. He inspected that also, and after making many experiments with it, he assisted in cutting the screw down, and thereby improved it. Had not then heard of Lowe's patent. Experiments are still being made by the government on the subject. Witness had since become acquainted with Lowe's patent, and did not think one blade of one-sixteenth would be a useful instrument. Cross-examined.-Mr. Smith's propeller was one of the screws affixed to the Rattler. Mr. Smith took part in the government experiments. The reduction made was one-sixth of the turn of the screw. Mr. Braithwaite, civil engineer. Had made all Ericsson's propellers, and made experiments with them. Ericsson's is not like Lowe's. The first experiments made with Ericsson's began in May, 1837, and continued for several months. It was found that with two wheels there was greater power, but that with one there was greater velocity. Ericsson's propeller was tried with rudders in the stern, and in almost all imaginable positions. In all cases windmills and smoke-jacks should be made as nearly as possible a screw. Witness could see no difference between Bramah's and Lowe's patent, except in respect of the size of the plates. He thought a shipwright would have no difficulty in applying it to the vessel. Professor Cooper, lecturer on manufacturing implements in King's College, said:-The sails of a windmill, if correctly made, would form a screw. A person making a propeller from Bramah's specification would, he believed, make one like his model. Looking at Lowe's drawing, he should say the novelty consisted in the hoop shape with the shape of the blade, but not in the curvature. Witness did not think Penn's invention an infringement of Lowe's patent. None of them are exact screws, but still no one can say they are not screws. Shorter's propeller acted on the principle of a portion of a screw. Cross examined.—He thought a portion of a screw better than a whole screw. Mr. Field, of the firm of Maudeslay and Field, engineers, considered that in all times the sails of a windmill have been made on the principle of portions of a screw. In Lowe's specification the pitch is not stated. It ought to be stated to enable a practical man to make the screw. He had read Bramah's specification, and thought this model correctly represented what a practical man would have made from it. This was the case for the defendant. The Attorney-General having replied at considerable lengthLord Denman summed up the evidence very elaborately, and told the jury that if they were satisfied this was a new combination, though of old parts, which produced a beneficial effect, and was sufficiently described in the specification, the inventor was entitled to be protected; but if it had been used before, or specifically described before, so that the instrument could be made from the description of it, then the party claiming could not be called the inventor, or be entitled to a patent. The Jury retired for about an hour, and then returned into Court with a verdict for the plaintiff, with 40s. damages, thereby establishing his right to the patent. LIST OF REGISTRATIONS EFFECTED UNDER THE ACT FOR PROTECTING NEW AND ORIGINAL DESIGNS FOR ARTICLES OF UTILITY. 1848. Jan. 27. William Groves, of the firm of Richard Groves and Sons, of Sheffield, tool makers, for a moveable doublehandled file. Feb. 27. Thomas Edwards, of 10, Market-street, Cambridge, for a railway signal. 28. Richard Restell, of 35, High-street, Croydon, watchmaker, &c., for a fruit and seed protector. 28. Charles Bentley Bingley, of 22, Great Marlboroughstreet, for a new design for the shape or configuration of an over-coat, called the redingote. 28. Charles Thomas Green, of Woolwich, for a new design for the shape or configuration of an instrument to be applied to the chimney or funnel of a steam-boat, in order to retain the upper part secure in the event of the ordinary hinges giving way. 29. S. Mordan & Co., of the City-road, London, for a combined letter and stamping press. 29. S. Mordan & Co., of the City-road, London, for a label damper. 31. Chauncey Jerome, jun., of Liverpool, for an improved portable domestic cooking stove. 1. John Mortimer, of 16, Young-street, Aberdeen, for a mortice and tenon cutting machine. 2. Andrew Mc Laren, of 20, Steel-yard, Upper Thamesstreet, iron merchant and founder, for an improved. range pinion and spindle. 2. Dent, Allcroft, & Co., of 97, Wood-street, Cheapside, London, for an elasticated tongue-piece for stocks, ties, and other articles for the neck. 3. John Young, of Ayr, engineer, for an improved machine for making pipe tiles. 4. John Randolph Remington, of Alabama, U.S., but now of Stafford, for an improved millstone. 7. John Thompson Wilson, of Vale-place, Hammersmith, builder, for an improved chimney-top, to prevent chimneys from smoking. 8. Richard Robinson, late of Lisburn, now of Eliza Street Works, Belfast, agricultural engineer and machine maker, for a steam boiler water gauge. Feb. 9. Joseph Sherwin, of 21, Norton Falgate, London, iron founder and range manufacturer, for a double-draft register stove. 9. Abraham Abraham, of Liverpool, optician, for a dissolving view lantern 10. John Randolph Remington, of Alabama, U.S., but now of Stafford, for a condensing and digesting coffee and teapot top. 10. William Weston, of 73, Wood-street, Cheapside, shirt manufacturer, for the "aptandum shirt." 11. James Blatch Cox, of Falmouth, ironmonger, and Josiah Stanton, of Gerrans, Cornwall, builder, for an improved chimney top. 11. George Twigg, of Birmingham, for a button. 11. Bedford & Rand, of 296, Oxford-street, for a lady's saddle. 14. Henry Jackson, of 3, Little Love-lane, Wood-street, Cheapside, London, for a cravat. 14. Smith & Co., of 5, Fell-street, Cheapside, London, for a bombule," for medicinal purposes. 14. Antoni Forrer, of 136, Regent-street, artist in hair and jewellery, for a hair guard, necklace, and bracelet protector. 16. William Davidson, of Thomas-place, Gravel-lane, engineer, for an improved fire-escape. 16. W. Northern, of Vauxhall-walk, Lambeth, brown stone potter, for improved stone-ware pipes. 16. John Warner & Sons, of 8, Crescent, Cripplegate, engineers, for an improved fan or spreader for fire and garden engines. 16. Robert Davies, of 8, Blue Cross-street, Haymarket, London, for a cigar and pipe tube. 17. Samuel White, of 30, Broad-street, Golden-square, cap manufacturer, for a hat stretcher. 17. Ebenezer Charles Browne, of St. Alban's, assurance 18. Marius Pierre Philip Bourjeaurd, of 17, Deverall-street, 19. Thomas Lambert & Son, of 30, New Cut, Lambeth, for VOL. XXXII. S |