TO MORRIS WEST RUTHVEN, of Rotherham, in the county of York, engineer, for a new mode of increasing the power of certain media, when acted upon by rotary fans, or other similar apparatus.-[Sealed 22nd March, 1841.]

THIS invention consists in causing the air, gas, or other media, to pass through a series of rotary fans, which act in succession upon it, and increase its power, and finally force it out of the exit pipe of the last fan, in the shape of a strong blast. To effect this, the exit pipe of one fan, is made the entrance pipe of the next fan, and so on throughout the series; thus, each fan will act on the air or other media, as it passes through it, and increase the force communicated to it by the preceding fan.

The patentee claims increasing the power of the said media, when acted upon by rotary fans, or other similar apparatus, by causing it to pass directly from one fan to another, throughout the whole series, each succeeding fan acting upon it in the state in which it left the preceding one, in consequence of the eduction passage for the air, from one fan, forming the induction passage of the next fan, as above described.—[Inrolled in the Inrolment Office, September, 1841.]

To JOSEPH CLISILD DANIELL, of Tiverton Mills, near Bath, for improvements in making and preparing food for cattle.-[Sealed 31st March, 1842.]

THE first improvement consists in preparing ligneous matters, such as coppice-wood, brush-wood, hedge-wood, brambles, furze, gorse, heath, or any other fibrous matter partaking of the nature of wood, for feeding cattle, by reducing them to a fine powder.

The pulverized ligneous matter is used in the following proportions :-For horses, half a peck of ligneous matter, a bushel of chaff, and one pint of corn, are mixed together, and moistened, either by steaming, or by the addition of

water, or a solution, composed of eight ounces of soda to one gallon of water.

For horned cattle and sheep, half a peck of ligneous matter is mixed with one bushel of chaff, and moistened as above. This mixture is used alone, or an addition may be made of half a bushel of grains, or crushed potatoes, parsnips, carrots, turnips, or mangel-wurzel.

For store pigs, one bushel of grains, or crushed potatoes, parsnips, &c., and half a bushel of ligneous matter, are mixed with the wash; or three pecks of ligneous matter and one peck of barley meal; or else, an equal quantity of ligneous matter and bran.

For fattening pigs, barley meal and ligneous matter, in equal quantities, are mixed with the wash.

The second improvement consists in a mode of operating upon grass, hay, wheat or barley straw, bean or pea halm, or any other sort of straw or halm, previous to using the same as food for cattle.

A quantity of the straw, halm, or hay, in a dry state, is mixed with double its weight of fresh mown grass, and placed in a tank or vat, provided with a steam-jacket; into this jacket, steam is admitted, and at the expiration of twenty-four hours, the straw will have become saturated with the moisture arising from the grass. A current of atmospheric air is now forced through the vat, for six or eight hours, by means of an air-pump, and a considerable portion of the moisture being thus carried off, the matters operated upon are ready for immediate consumption, or may be stacked for future use.

The patentee claims, Firstly.—The mode of making and preparing food for cattle, by pulverizing ligneous matters, and applying the same to feed cattle.

Secondly. The mode of treating all kinds of grass and straw, or halm, or grass, and hay, in a vat or tank, when preparing the same for the food of cattle, as described.— [Inrolled in the Inrolment Office, September, 1842.]

Scientific Ajudication.

REPORT OF THE CASE

OF

BROWN ANNANDALE AND SON,
(On Appeal from the Court of Session in Scotland,)

DECIDED BY THE HOUSE OF LORDS, ON FRIDAY, FEB. 25TH, 1842.
With some Observations upon the probable Effect of the
Decision upon existing Patents.

BY CHARLES SHEARMAN, GENT., OF GRAY'S INN. (ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS' AGENTS.)

En the House of Lords.

JAMES BROWN, of Esk Mills, in the

Parish of Penicuik and County Appellant.
of Edinburgh

ALEXANDER ANNANDALE & SON,
Paper Manufacturers, at Polton
near Lasswade, in the County of
Edinburgh

Respondents.

This was an appeal from the First Division of the Court of Session of Scotland, wherein the appellant complained of certain interlocutors pronounced by the Court below, under dates, respectively, of the 8th and 13th July, 1841. The case arose out of the following circumstances:

The pursuer, James Brown, had, on the 4th of February, 1836, obtained letters patent for that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland, for an alleged invention of "a certain improvement or certain improvements in the making or manufacturing of paper," a specification or description of which invention he caused to be inrolled in Her Majesty's Chancery in Scotland, on the 4th June, 1836, agreeably to the usual proviso contained in such grants. The particulars of the supposed invention it is unnecessary to state, as the point upon which the present appeal was brought, was entirely independent of what may be termed the merits of the case, and although a variety of important questions were raised in the Court below, both upon the sufficiency of the specification, and as to the fact of there having been any infringement as alleged, it is not proposed to do more, in the present report, than to state the few admitted facts upon which the point, brought before their Lordships, turned.

The defendants having used, in their paper-works, the machine of a Mr. Evans, of Birmingham, (who had likewise obtained a patent for certain improvements in paper-making machinery,) were attacked by the pursuer, by what is called, in Scotland, an action of suspension and interdict, (which is a proceeding analogous to a bill for an injunction in the English Courts of Equity,) complaining of an alleged infringement of the pursuer's patent of 4th February, 1836. The defenders put in answers to the pursuer's note of suspension, setting forth their grounds of defence, whereupon no injunction was applied for by the pursuer, but he shortly afterwards followed up his proceedings, by an action for damages, in order to try the validity of his patent and of the defences set up against his claim to the summary interference of the Court.

The two actions being, (according to the practice of the Scotch Courts) conjoined, a record was made up and sent for trial, before the Jury Court, upon the following admissions and issues :

"It being admitted that, on the 4th day of February, 1836, the pursuer obtained letters patent under the Great Seal used in Scotland in place of the Great Seal thereof, whereby there was granted the exclusive privilege, during the period of fourteen years from the said 4th February, 1836, of using, as his original invention, certain machinery, as described in the said letters-patent, and in the specification inrolled in the Court of Chancery, for the application, in paper-making, of a vacuum to the horizontal web of wire-cloth of a Fourdrinier machine, in the manner described in the said specification : "Whether, during all or any part of the years 1839 and 1840, at the paper-mill works of the defenders at Polton, subsequent to the date of the said letters-patent and the said specification, the defenders, by themselves or others, without the consent or permission of the pursuer, wrongfully, and in contravention of the said letters-patent, used, in their said works, machinery in imitation of, and substantially the same with, the machinery described in the said specification, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer? Or,"Whether the said machinery, described in the said specification, is not the original invention of the pursuer ?

"Whether a machine or machines, constructed according to the description in the said letters-patent and specification, is not practically useful for the purpose therein set forth?

"Whether the description of the machine, contained in the said specification, is not such as to enable workmen, of ordinary skill, to make a machine capable of producing the effects set forth in the said patent?

"Damages laid at £1000."

These issues came to be tried before LORD MACKENZIE, one of the Judges of the First Division of the Court of Session, and a Jury, on the 14th and 15th days of May, 1841; and after the evidence, on the pursuer's part, had been concluded, the counsel for the defenders, in his address to the Jury, stated, that it would be part of the defenders' case to bring evidence to prove, inter alia, his averment on the record, that the invention, specified by the pursuer, had been publicly used IN ENGLAND before the date of his patent. Whereupon the admissibility of any such evidence was objected to by the pursuer's counsel, on the ground, that previous public use of the invention in England was not a ground for invalidating the pursuer's patent in Scotland. Lord Mackenzie over-ruled the objection, and decided, that the evidence

was admissible, as proving a ground of the invalidity of the patent. Against this judgment the counsel for the pursuer excepted and lodged the following minute :

"In respect of the opinion of the Judge, that the use and practice averred as to England, is competent, in evidence, to establish the first issue for the defenders, the pursuer admits, that the verdict must, in point of fact, go on that first issue for the defenders, subject to exception to the opinion of the Judge; the pursuer admitting that, if the above point of law is decided against him, the defenders are entitled to judgment in the cause."

Upon which the Jury pronounced the following verdict:-" In respect of the matters proven before them, and of the minute by the counsel for the pursuer, we find for the defenders on the first issue for the defenders."

The Bill of Exceptions came to be argued before their Lordships of the First Division of the Court of Session, when, on the 8th of July, 1841, they pronounced the following interlocutor:-"The Lords having heard counsel for the parties, disallow this Bill of Exceptions."

On the 13th July, 1841, the above decision, in favour of the defenders, was further carried out by the following additional interlocutor or decree :-"The Lords, in respect of the verdict of the Jury in this cause, apply the same; and, in the process of suspension and interdict, find the letters orderly proceeded, and dismiss the suspension; and, in the action of declarator and damages, assoilzie the defenders from the conclusions of the summons, and decern; find the defenders entitled to expenses in said conjoined actions, and remit the accounts when lodged to the auditor to tax and report."

Against these two interlocutors of the 8th and 13th July, 1841, the appellant (the pursuer below) brought the present appeal, praying that their Lordships would be pleased to reverse, vary, or alter the same, or that he might have such relief in the premises as to their Lordships should seem meet.

It will be seen, from the foregoing short abstract of the proceedings below, that there was thus distinctly raised, for the opinion of the Court of Last Resort, this very important question, namely: Whether it is essential to the validity of a Scotch patent, that the invention, for which it is granted, should be new throughout Great Britain?' or, in other words, Whether evidence of the knowledge or use of the invention in England, prior to the date of the patent in Scotland, was sufficient to destroy the grant?'

It will probably be expected that, in a report upon a case of this kind, the reasons or grounds relied upon by the several parties, to support their respective views of the law upon the question in dispute between them, should be stated in their own words. There will be the less hesitation in doing this, as it is well known, that these 'Reasons' are prepared by counsel of great eminence, after the fullest consideration of the law of the case, and of the authorities bearing upon it, and that they bear the attestation of their signatures before they are admitted into the printed cases laid before their Lordships' House.

The following were the Reasons' assigned, on the part of the appellant, and upon which he contended, that the decision of the Court below was erroneous: