Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

and loosen it sufficiently to come out; and for the purpose the better to facilitate the getting out of the stamp or maundril from so large a portion of the barrel welded at a time, let the stamp or maundril be made of as regular, smooth, and per. fectly round form as possible, and of a gradual taper from heel to point. The number, weight, and velocity of the hammers may be varied according to the description of barrel desired; but for musket barrels, which are generally from three feet three inches to three feet six inches long, when it is wished to weld them at two heats, we recommend six hammers; the hammers should be ranged in a straight line, side by side, as true and as close together as they will work free, and covering a space of about twenty inches, and in width about four or five inches. They should work very true upon the swage or anvil, and rise and fall together, or nearly together, or alter. nately; the faces of the hammers may be either even or hollowed out a little in those parts which fall upon the barrel when welding. The hammers may be fixed, connected, and worked by machinery, according to any of the well-known methods of working hammers. Or, instead of welding the barrels by hammers, as before described, they may be welded between a pair of rollers, grooved to fit the form of the barrel, the rollers having either an alternate or rotary motion, and worked by steam, water, or other mechanical power; but we consider the hammers to be the best method, as making the soundest and most perfect barrels. in either way care should be taken to have the edges, seams or joints of the skelp or piece of iron placed true together, to give the iron a regular welding heat, and to put in and take out the stamp or maundril as quick as possible. The advantages of our aforesaid me.

thod of heating barrels in a hollow fire, or an air or reverberatory furnace, and welding them by hammers or rollers worked by machinery, is, that we are enabled to make them much sounder and more accurately and expeditiously than they are at present made; we prevent cinders, ashes, or dirt, from getting into the inside of the barrels, or between the welding seam or joint, which now often happens, and which causes the barrels to bore black, or prove otherwise unsound. Our invention also extends to the turning of all kinds and descriptions of barrels for muskets or other fire-arms, in an improved turning machine or lathe, with cutters or sharp steel instruments or tools, worked by machinery, with steam, water, or any other mechanical power.” The specification then proceeds to describe the turning machine, and the advantages of the invention. See 20 Repy, Arts, 265, 2d Series.

Cook's Patent. Letters patent to Benjamin Couk, 28th March, 1808, for a “method of making barrels for fowling pieces, muskets, pistols, and other similar firearms, and ramrods for the same."

The part of the invention alleged to relate to Whitehouse's patent was described as follows: “ My second method is to take plates or skelps of iron or steel, drawn under the hammer, or rolled, or otherwise made to a proper size, form, and thickness, which I turn over a maundril beak iron, or any thing suitable to the purpose, and weld them. I then draw or force them through holes, or plates with graduated holes, as above; or I pass them between rollers with grooves in them, as before specified, until they have attained the length, size, form, and thickness desired." See 14 Repy. of Arts, 21, 2d Series.

RUSSELL v. COWLEY & Dixon.

Cor. Lord Brougham, L.C.

In Chuncery.

[ocr errors]

The bill having set forth the grant of the letters patent, and Bill filed, the specification, and the assignment to the plaintiff, after the Aug. 6, usual charges, prayed a discovery and disclosure of the matters therein-before stated, and an account of all the iron tubing made and sold by the defendants by the use of the said invention, and of all the profits made thereby, and that the defendants might pay to the plaintiff what should be found due on taking such account, and be restrained from making tubes according to the plaintiff's invention during the term of the patent.

Various affidavits were filed on both sides, and on the motion June 20, 1833 coming on

Sir E. B. Sugden for the plaintiff stated, that as an action must be brought, he would accede to the terms proposed by the other side, namely, that an account should be kept, and two persons

appointed on each side as inspectors of the works, for the purpose of giving evidence on the trial of the action, which was to

be brought forthwith. It was accordingly orderedOrder.

That the plaintiff should be at liberty to bring such action June 20, 1833. at law against the defendants as he should be advised, pro

vided he delivered a declaration within a month from that time. And that the defendants should keep an account of all moneys received by them on account, or in respect of, all iron pipes or tubes for gas and other purposes, made according to or in infringement of the letters patent of Cornelius Whitehouse, in the plaintiff's bill mentioned, and that the said defendants should permit and suffer the solicitor of the said plaintiff, together with Messrs. M. I. Brunel and B. Donkin (each party to be at liberty to name two other persons, to be submitted to the Lord Chancellor for his approbation, if the other party object to them, and each party was to furnish the other with the proposed names, on or before the 22d day of July instant, and the objection, if any, was to be made within four days after the list of the names is furnished, and if the names are objected to, the Lord Chancellor would decide what persons should be allowed), to go over the manufactory of the said defendants, situate at Walsal, in the county of Stafford, and inspect the machinery set up there for making iron pipes or tubes for gas or other purposes, and to observe the method or methods of manufacturing such pipes or tubes by the said defendants, for which purpose the said defendants were to put their machinery to work in the presence of the said viewers, and to afford every facility to them to ascertain the process of welding tubes by means of such machinery, and every part thereof, it being the object and intention of this court to enable the said plaintiff to give such evidence to the court and jury on the trial of the aforesaid action at common law, as will enable him to make out (if the fact be so) the infringement complained of by his bill in this court. And that the said plaintiff should in like manner permit and suffer the solicitors of the said defendants, together with Messrs. Bramah and Clegg, and such other persons as aforesaid, in their company, to go over the manufactory of the said plaintiff, situate at Wednesbury, in the county of Stafford, and inspect the machinery set up there for manufacturing iron pipes or tubes for gas, and other purposes, and to observe the method or methods of manufacturing such pipes or tubes by the said plaintiff, for which purpose the said plaintiff was to put his machinery to work in the presence of the said viewers, and to afford every facility to them to ascertain the process of welding tubes used by him, according to the terms of the specification of the letters patent in the plaintiff's bill particularly mentioned, it being the object and intention of this court to enable the said defendants to give such

evidence to the court and jury on the trial of the aforesaid action at law as will enable them to prove (if the fact be so) the negative of the infringement complained of by the said plaintiff's bill. And that the plaintiff's and defendants' solicitors should respectively give notice to each other of the day and hour on which the viewers should respectively appoint to visit and view the respective works, the day to be named in such notices respectively, being at the distance of one week from the delivery of such notices respectively, and the hours of inspeetion to be from ten in the morning until four in the afternoon, if the said viewers should require to remain so long upon the premises, and the said viewers respectively should be at liberty to carry away with them any specimen of the pipes or tubes operated upon by them, or in their presence, as they might think proper, in order to their production in court on the trial of the said action.

It was further ordered, that J. Hobbins (the superintendent of Order. plaintiff's works) and C. Whitehouse (as showers) should attend up Messrs. M. I. Brunel and B. Donkin in going over the manufactory of the defendants, for the purposes mentioned in the above order, but they were not to be produced as witnesses on the trial at law as to any matter or thing which should come to their knowledge by means of such inspection.

Russell v. COWLEY & Dixon.

Cor. Lord Lyndhurst, C.B.

1834.

The declaration stated the grant of the letters patent to Trial at law. Whitehouse, and the assignment to the plaintiff, and as- F signed several breaches in the usual form. The defendants pleaded, not guilty.

Sir James Scarlett stated the plaintiff's case, and described the two former modes of making gas pipes, the one by boring in a lathe out of the solid, the other by turning up the edges of a flat plate, so as to make them lap over, and then heating the iron to a welding heat, when the metal could be united by means of hammers, and the use of a maundril or metal rod inserted within the tube for the purpose of keeping it of a circular form, and resisting the blows applied to the metal.

The invention of Whitehouse, which had been assigned to the plaintiff, consists in turning up a piece of plate of iron so that the edges abut on each other, or nearly so, heating the iron so prepared, and drawing it when at a welding heat

Trial at law.

through dies, having a conical hole, which admits a rather larger tube on one side than on the other, and by the compression which the edges receive in the drawing, the tube becomes perfectly formed and welded, without the use of the maundril. The effect of this mode of manufacturing tubes produced a complete revolution in the trade, at once reducing the price of tubes by one-third; besides, the tubes so made are of much greater length and of greater uniformity, both internally and externally, and the trade of making tubes came immediately after the patent almost entirely into the hands of the plaintiff.

The defendants pass tubes through grooved rollers, by which they are said to be completely welded, and afterwards through what they call a scorpion, which is in effect the plaintiff's die, but which the defendants contend to be only for the purpose of scraping and lengthening, and not for the purpose of welding; but it would appear that the welding could not be completed without the scorpion by the rollers alone; the weld made by rolls alone being so imperfect, that the tubes would not be marketable. The defendants contend that the scorpion is only for the purpose of scraping and lengthening, and not for the purpose of welding; if this be so, why is it made bell-mouthed, and, in fact, exactly like the plaintiff's pincers or dies? It is further said by the defendants, that their tubes when passed through the scorpion are not at a welding heat; first, because water is poured on the iron, and secondly, because of the distance to which the tube is conveyed before being passed through the scorpion. But the heat of the iron is so intense, that the water has no effect on the iron at a welding heat; and with respect to the distance, it will be shown that the iron will continue at a welding heat though carried fifty-eight instead of fifteen feet; that it retains a welding heat for seventeen or eighteen seconds, whereas it may be carried from the furnace to the scorpion in less than two seconds. The rollers are introduced to give a colour to avoid the plaintiff's patent (w). An attempt was made before the Chancellor to show that one Cook was the original inventor of the plaintiff's mode; but Cook's invention consists in passing iron through a series of graduated holes until it assumes the form of a tube, and Cook now purchases tubes from the plaintiff.

Mr. Donkin and Mr. Brunel were then examined as to the result of their inspection of the plaintiff's and defendants' works in pursuance of the order of the Chancellor (y). They described having seen tubes made at plaintiff's works by heating and drawing through conical holes in the manner described in the specification of Whitehouse's patent. They detailed some experiments in which the tube was carried fifty-five feet from the Evidence for furnace, and then passed through the tongs and welded. At the the plaintif. defendants' works the skelp was heated in an air furnace; the rollers (which were placed three inches from the furnace) had four grooves in each; the diameter of the rollers at the bottom of two of the grooves being 5 inches, and of the other two 43 inches. The scorpion had three graduated conical holes; it was fixed to a cast iron frame, and resembled a pair of tongs. The rollers made about one hundred and twenty revolutions a minute. When the heat of the skelp was sufficient, the revolution of the rollers passed it through, the upper roller being pressed down by the hand; the tube having passed once through the rollers was returned to the fire and reheated, then passed three times through the rollers in quick succession, and then drawn through each of the holes in the scorpion in succession; the tube continuing all the time at a welding heat. The passage through the scorpion elongated the tubes considerably. Tubes made by passing through the rollers alone would not be cylindrical or marketable. The defendant Cowley and his solicitor refused to allow any tubes to be made by drawing through the scorpion alone. The tubes made by the rollers alone were misshapen; one part of the iron being driven past the other. The tubes made by passing through the rollers and scorpion are as good as the plaintiff's; the scorpion is precisely the same thing as the plaintiff's tongs. Better pipes would be made by passing the skelp through the scorpion alone, than by passing through the rollers and scorpion. The defendants' process was very dilatory, and would occasion a great increase of expense. At the plaintiff's, the tube can be welded and completed by passing once through the die. One purpose of passing several times through the die is to lengthen the pipe. The defendants' scorpion was not for scraping. Water was dripping on the scorpion at the defendants', and the tongs were dipped in water each time at the plaintiff's.

Plaintiff's evidence.

(1) The plaintiff ultimately succeeded, on evide · that these rollers alone produced a welding

in the iron, as described in the specifcation. Post, 462.

(y) Arte 458.

Mr. Carpmael described the pipes manufactured by the plaintiff as very superior to those made in the old way; that pipes previously welded by passing through the rollers would be greatly improved by the scorpion; they would become more intimately welded, and any inequality in the welding or on the surface would be removed, and the pipes rendered perfectly cylindrical, and those before unmarketable would be rendered marketable by being drawn through the scorpion. Tubes were formerly made about four feet, but by the plaintiff fifteen feet, in length. The pipes could be made as perfect by the scorpion of the defendants, as by the plaintiff's dies. The rollers are useless and injurious. The diameter of the innermost parts of the grooves in each roller being less than the diameter of the outer parts, the surface of one part of the groove travels at

« ZurückWeiter »