the reel to move more freely. According to the greater freedom of the motion of the wheel, or the retardation of the wheel, the greater or less tension is produced. Now Mr. Huddart's specification is this:-At K a spring is fixed to the wooden arm, by means of a screw and nails, or otherwise the screw works in the square part of the spindle, by means of which the spring may be made stronger or weaker, as requisite; the other end of which, resting upon the globular part of the head of the bobbin, formed for that purpose, to regulate the tension of the yarn in drawing it from the bobbin, whilst the spindle is turning in registering the strand. Here for a moment let us take our stand: the same end appears to be produced, according to my understanding, by the one and the other, to regulate the tension; now, if it is a spring to regulate the tension of the yarn, which is essential to be regulated, it does seem to me, but it is for your judgment to say whether it is a material part of the invention; if it be a material part of the invention, and relied upon as such, as it should seem it is by both, and if it is the same, then that which has been communicated by Mr. Belfour, Mr. Huddart cannot take the benefit of.

Then there is another matter, with respect to the tube. Mr. Belfour says various other methods may be substituted for the purpose of preventing the strand from twisting, until it has received that position the workman wishes, such as pieces of wood, with holes bored in them; small machines, divided in a similar manner, or some

thing like to the separating machine before described; or by the external application of a ring or other circular instrument; or any other shape so as to press upon the strand, and prevent its receiving an improper twist, to serve the purpose or intention of the top minor; for unless the strand is regulated in the twist, and kept exactly in the position in which it is to remain, the good effects proposed by this invention will be in a great degree defeated; therefore it is not of any consequence in what manner it is so regulated, so long as that point is accomplished. Now what Mr. Huddart says upon it is this:-This disposition of the yarns is necessary previous to their passing through the cylindrical tube of metal, in which the strand is compressed and formed. He says the tube compressing the yarns, and confining the outer shell to its proper figure, which outer shell compresses the next, and so on to the centre, there cannot be any crossing of yarns, or change in situation: but the whole strand formed close and compact, and no more yarn required from the bobbins than is necessary, according to the situation of the shells, or their distance from the centre. Now the tube does seem to me, with submission to you, an important difference from the mere circle through which it passes, because it keeps it in a degree of confinement for a greater time, and more certainly obtains the end pointed out-in Mr. Belfour's specification, the same end is to be attained; and had the patent been taken for that to be done by a tube, which was before done by a ring

or circle, I should have thought the patent good, for that is a distinct substantive invention. It will be for you to consider whether that which is pointed out in Mr. Belfour's specification will be broke in upon by a tube, which keeps it in a state of confinement for a longer time, and attains the end with more certainty. It is for you to say, for that is the substance of the case, as to the invasion of the patent, whether any essential part of it was disclosed to the public before. If you think the same effect in substance is produced, and that the springs in Mr. Belfour's, by producing tension, obtains a material end in the making of ropes in the way proposed, and that it is in substance the same as in the other, this patent certainly must, upon principles of law, fall to the ground. If you think it is not the same, or if you think it is not material, though we have had the evidence of Mr. Rennie upon its materiality-if you think this patent has been obtained for a new invention, carried into effect by methods new, and not too large beyond the actual invention of the party, in that case the patent may be sustained; but if you think otherwise, in point of law or expediency, the patent cannot be sustained.

Verdict for the plaintiff-Damages one shilling.

299

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Smith v. Dickenson.

10th Feb. 1804.

THIS was an action in assumpsit. The declaration stated that before the making of the promises, &c. the plaintiff had contrived various articles in the business of a sadler, which he fully conceived to be new and valuable improvements; and in particular he had before then invented a certain spring apparatus for girthing saddles, and at the time of making the promises, &c. the plaintiff was desirous of obtaining his Majesty's letters patent for the sole use and benefit of the said invention for a certain term, to be specified in the said letters patent, of which the defendant had notice. And whereas the defendant was desirous of being made acquainted with the nature of the said invention, in consideration of the promises, and also in consideration that the plaintiff would communicate the nature of the invention to the defendant, the defendant undertook that he would not avail himself or take any advantage of such communication under the penalty of £1000. It then averred that the plaintiff confiding in the defendant's promise, did communicate to him the nature of the said invention; but that the defendant not regarding, &c. but intending to injure the plaintiff wrongfully, &c. disclosed and made known the nature of the said in

vention, and obtained his Majesty's letters patent for the sole use and benefit of the said invention for 14 years, as being the invention of him, the defendant, and thereby availed himself and took an undue advantage of the communication made to him as aforesaid; whereby the defendant became liable to pay £1000 according to his agreement, yet that the defendant had not paid, &c.

The second count was the same as the first, with the addition of an allegation that the plaintiff sustained special damage by being prevented from taking out letters patent in his own name, and thereby lost great profit.

Plea non assumpsit.

The cause was tried at the Guildhall Sittings after Michaelmas Term, 1803, before Chief Justice Lord Alvanley, when it was proved that the plaintiff having invented the spring apparatus mentioned in the declaration, the defendant called upon him, and expressed himself extremely desirous to be informed of the nature of the invention; that the plaintiff communicated the invention to the defendant, upon his signing the following agreement: "Thomas Smith, of No. 119, New Bond-street, sadler, having contrived various articles in the above branch which he fully conceives to be new and valuable improvements, Mr. Robert Dickenson, of No. 55, Long Acre, being desirous of being made acquainted with one of the above-mentioned improvements, which Mr. Dickenson fully comprehends, under the title of spring apparatus, to answer or produce the same effect as those for which Mr. Robert Dickenson