Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Sir F. Pollock great processes of smelting; attention had been called to it in for the plaintiff. various ways. It was thought that there must be some mode by which so plentiful an article, and apparently so tempting and so promising a subject for the philosopher or for the enterprising manufacturer, could be brought into use. You will find that it had been the subject of much consideration, of various attempts, and some patents; it had been the subject of even prizes; rewards were offered for the purpose, to any person who could make use of it, or bring it to bear advantageously in the manufacture of iron. But until the time that Mr. Crane first discovered, that provided you would use a blast previously raised to a temperature of about 600 degrees of Fahrenheit-until he had discovered that which was the subject with him of repeated experiments, and that sort of expense which I dare say you are aware of when the subject of experiment is a furnace on a very large scale-nothing had been done successfully; but Mr. Crane having distinctly ascertained the fact, took out his patent, enrolled his specification, and published to the world that which he had done.

Gentlemen, probably there has very rarely been a discovery of this importance and magnitude, the full value of which was instantly appreciated. Within a very short time the value of all the property around Mr. Crane's premises, and around all the other smelting works, that under his license have begun to work, was greatly advanced in value. I believe I speak short of the mark, when I say that this property became three times its previous value. The iron itself was discovered to be much more abundant in quantity; the same weight of ore gave what they call a larger yield of metal, and the metal that was obtained was itself of a much more valuable quality. The process itself was one of considerable economy compared with the other, for a smaller quantity of fuel was actually used. These advantages were so clear and acknowledged, so instantly felt in the neighbourhood where Mr. Crane lived, that the influential people in that country met together to give Mr. Crane a dinner; and he was, undoubtedly, then hailed as one of the greatest benefactors that had ever come forward to advance the manufactures, and thereby the prosperity, of the country. And the effect of this discovery is, that we shall be able not merely to compete on the subject of iron, of the best sort, with any country on the face of the globe, but that we can now by this process manufacture a much better iron than any that we have been in the habit of importing, for any purpose, from any part of the world. I speak chiefly, of course, of Swedish iron, which has long been considered, for certain pur poses, the best iron; and even at the present time, Swedish iron, no doubt, is used for some purposes, although to a much less extent than was the case a few years ago.

Mr. Crane then has brought into use-into most efficient use

-large tracts of this description of coal, which before his inven- H. Vac., 1840. tion undoubtedly was considered to be of little or no use, beyond furnishing fuel to some few manufactories. The supply to the London market was very small, indeed so small that the price of this coal was higher than the ordinary coal; not that the coal itself was dearer, for it was a mere drug, it was to be had at a lower price than any other coal at the place where it was to be obtained; but the demand for it was so small, and the quantity which came so inconsiderable, that they could not afford to bring it. It was not an article in sufficient demand to come with that facility so as to be furnished at the cheap rate at which it would have been, if there had been the same sort of demand as there is for bituminous coal. This invention and this discovery has created a source of wealth, wherever stone coal exists, that had no existence whatever before. Probably the price of that article, the value of it, is more than quadrupled, for instead of being an article of no value, it has become now of a value as great as bituminous coal itself, and for the purposes of this manufacture its tendency is entirely to supersede it; wherever it can be obtained, it would supersede it.

But this is not the only important matter; it gives a larger quantity of iron. That is a matter of evidence, and will be made out, I believe, to your entire satisfaction. The iron itself is of far greater value; and if it be required that a discovery should give to the world a new manufacture or substance, the iron that is produced by Mr. Crane's invention undoubtedly has this remarkable feature of novelty-that it is far stronger, and far more valuable, than any other iron that has yet been made by any other process.

The defendants first say, they are not guilty; by which, as I understand, they mean to contend that, because they do not use all anthracite they are not infringers. They admit the use of the hot blast, of the temperature described in the specification, and the use of a portion of stone coal. The plaintiff's invention is not limited to the sole and exclusive use of stone coal; he has discovered that the use of a fuel never before used to any practical extent in the making of iron is practicable in all and every proportion, and that the more of that fuel is used the better will be the iron. The use of that fuel at all is pro tanto an infringement of the patent.

The third plea may either mean that iron was made before by the combination of the hot blast with the use of stone coal, or that the invention is not a manufacture. The former will be disproved by the evidence, and the latter will be for the decision of his lordship. Undoubtedly the iron produced is a new manufacture, for such iron was never produced at all before, and no iron was ever produced in the same way before. Had the article produced been the same, which it is not, the producing it by a different process would have been as much

Sir F. Pollock protected by a patent as the production of an entirely new for the plaintiff. substance not previously known. The second plea says, that

the plaintiff was not the true and first inventor, and the fourth, that the specification is insufficient. The notice of objections delivered in pursuance of the statute states the specification to be defective in not stating the kind of furnaces, and whether applicable to all. The invention is applicable to all the furnaces alluded to in the specification, and to any ordinary furnace that is made and so constructed as to be in blast, and capable of having a hot air blast applied to it.

The fifth plea is principally matter of law. [The Lord Chief Justice Tindal: The greater part of this seems to be matter of law. You might almost make a case of it. The question is, whether the plaintiff is the true and first inventor, if the defendants have any evidence to show that a hot blast was applied to anthracite before.] [Sir T. Wilde, S.G.: It will terminate beyond all doubt in a question of law. There are some facts which are material—when the plaintiff invented it, when he obtained his patent, and some other things.] The true question raised by the issue on this plea I apprehend to be, whether it is impossible for any one to use a hot air blast of any sort without infringing Neilson's patent, because, if there be a single mode-if there be any possible hot air blast of any sort which is not Neilson's, then the issue raised on these pleadings must be found for the plaintiff. Be it admitted that Neilson discovered one mode of using hot air blast for any purpose whatever, not applying it at all events to the making of iron with stone coal, the plaintiff gives to the world as his discovery a hot air blast of a temperature of 600 degrees Fahrenheit, that is, about the temperature at which lead will melt. I shall show that there did exist before Neilson's patent a mode described of a hot air blast for a furnace (ante 274, n). If any one existed, all that the plaintiff was called upon to say was this, I care not where or how you get the hot air blast; whether by license under Neilson, or by means before given to the public, of some other improved method. The hot air blast is well known; I claim nothing in respect of it, except the using it in combination with anthracite, and not even that as against any patent. If it be necessary that I should have a license to use a particular kind of hot air blast, I admit that I must get that license. If Neilson had a complete monopoly of all the hot air blasts in the world, the patent, as an improvement on another patent, is unquestionably good. The plaintiff has discovered that the hot air blast used in a particular manner, for a particular purpose, will produce a result incomparably better than has been done by the combination of any other matter to produce the same results; if a particular form of hot air blast cannot be used without a license, that license must be obtained.

[ocr errors]

But it will be said the plaintiff took a license from Neilson.

The plaintiff's invention was of infinite importance; none in H. Vac., 1840. modern times to compare with it in the benefits it has conferred upon the country; the plaintiff was desirous by every possible means to carry it on to perfection, and having occasion to see what improvements had been made upon the hot air blast, which after all was no part of his invention, he could not tell but that many of the experiments might fall within Neilson's patent, and therefore it was much better for him to pay the small sum demanded by Neilson than involve himself in litigation at the earliest moment when his patent came before the public. The question is, whether the plan-the very plan pointed out by Mr. Crane-is within the scope and compass of Neilson's invention. It appeared better to traverse the fact, believing it not to be true, than to demur to the plea in point of law. Though we had a clear ground to ask for the judgment of the court, I believe this to be of no sort of importance; but still as regards the fact, the plaintiff will be entitled to the verdict. The plaintiff does not suggest the use of Neilson's hot blast exclusively; his patent is not for a mode of getting a hot air blast, of which plenty were known, or for a mode of raising the temperature to 600 degrees; but he says" Get the hot blast of a temperature of 600 degrees Fahrenheit, by any mode in your power, either under license or not, and having got it, apply it to the making of iron with the assistance of stone coal, and you will produce that superior article for which the plaintiff claims to have a valid patent."

The following is an abstract of the evidence :-John Morgan Plaintiff's evi-I am agent to the plaintiff, who carries on the Yniscedwin dence. Works. I know the Neath Abbey Works. I was sent there by the plaintiff in May, 1838. The fillers were then using anthracite, or stone coal; about 5 cwt. 1 qr. of that coal; no common coal except coke; of that about 9 cwt. There was about 14 cwt. of mine or iron stone to the charge. The hot air blast was used. I have been under the plaintiff sixteen or seventeen years. I partly know the process by which he manufactures his iron. I know the furnace No. 1. In that furnace the plaintiff uses hot blast and coke with stone coal. Sometimes half, sometimes three-fourths, of stone coal. In furnace No. 2, all stone coal is used. In No. 3, he uses all stone coal at present, at least when we started from home (c). Before that he had used coke partly. The plaintiff has now a full supply of stone coal. The plaintiff's hot blast melts lead. I could not tell the heat of the blast at the Neath Abbey Works.

(c) It was suggested on the part of the plaintiff, that the use of common coal or coke, spoken to by some of the witnesses, was owing to the plaintiff being short of stone coal, his colliery having been newly opened, and moreover the water having at one time got into it. See evidence

I cannot tell whether

of Reece Davis on cross-examination (Printed case, 26). But the same witness also states, that they found that in the large furnace, No. 3, they did not make so large a quantity of iron with more than two-fifths of stone coal; that they had been working half and half for several months.

Plaintiff's evi- the apparatus used was the same or different.

dence.

I have been in plaintiff's service upwards of sixteen years. The quality of the iron made by the plaintiff by the use of stone coal is better than that made with the cold blast or the heated air and coke; we call it a combination of stone coal. The iron made with the stone coalfis the better iron. I do not know the purposes for which the iron is used, or particularly about the quantities of fuel used.

On cross-examination- I overlook the plaintiff's colliery, about four and a-half or five miles from the works. It is bituminous coal. The plaintiff has had all his coal from that place since 1832. I went alone to the Neath Abbey Works. The usual charging is by so many barrows of one sort of thing and so many of another. I took an exact account in writing; it was May 1st, 1838. I have only been there an hour or two. They put in one barrow of stone coal to three of coke. The furnace was charged three times during the hour or two I was there. The mine is in boxes; the fillers told me there was 14 cwt. I saw the hot blast; I looked into the apparatus; there is a place to see it; I said what I came for. I know nothing about the management of furnaces; what I have said about the proportions varying, I have heard from the workmen. I was told to go and look at the furnaces before I started from home. No. 3 had all stone coal; I saw it at the top; I could not see it at the bottom; I was not there when the furnace was charged. The plaintiff gets stone coal close by his works. They were not using free burning coal (d) at the Neath Abbey Works; it was coke. I was last there on the 7th of June, 1838. I have seen free burning and bituminous coal coked when mixed. I have never seen small free burning coal coked. I am coker to the plaintiff. I have tried several times to coke small free burning coal, but could not succeed. Anthracite will not coke. I was last at the Neath Abbey Works on the 7th of June, 1838.

On re-examination-On the 7th of June they were using 5 cwt. and 1 qr. of stone coal, and coke of bituminous coal, as in the month of May.

John Buckland-I am master moulder to the plaintiff. I have been on the works thirty-six years. The works are situated on the anthracite or stone coal formation, which extends to Pembrokeshire, between sixty and seventy miles. I have known of several attempts to smelt iron with stone coal; they all failed. In 1827, we used a small quantity of stone coal, but it was drawn off; that is, no more was put in, we ceased using it. The effect was, that in a short time the twires were shut up, the blast could not get in; it was all clogged. I remember many

(d) The coal called free burning coal was said by the counsel for the defendants to be very nearly stone coal, but not to fall properly under that name; this, however, was denied on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. Mushet informs me, that free burning is the very opposite to anthracite, and of two kinds the one of a reedy and laminated, the

other of a crystallized structure. That in burning it exhibits no appearance of bituminous or binding matter, but contains pure carburetted hydrogen with a carbonaceous residuum; that the resulting coke is open, and not at all bound together by a bituminous cement. See post 394, n. a.

« ZurückWeiter »