doubtedly true, as the Counsel has just told you, that each of these matters which they claim as new, must be made out to your mind to be new, and, if so, the defendant is not entitled to use them at all; and if you should be of opinion that they are new, and some of them not new, it is no defence if he takes any part of it, for he is liable; because if the patent is new, the party is entitled to the benefit of all and every part of it; therefore, if the defendant has taken any part of that which the patentees have a title to, the action would lie; but you must be of opinion that each of the five articles they claim are new. Now, Gentlemen, as to the last point, whether in point of fact the defendant has made use of the cabriolet in question; that depends upon the testimony of two witnesses, namely, Henry Haynes and Hugh Mallett.

Mr. Haynes's evidence is, that he went to Seymouryard, Portman-street, Bryanston-square, about the 4th of October last; that he saw a cabriolet come out of the yard, which is the same as the model before you. He says "it had no platform; I watched it to New-street-mews, Dorset-street. I saw it leave the Mews about 7 o'clock, and it went back to Seymour Yard." He says, "I went the next morning there. I saw the cabriolet come out. Wilby, that is the defendant, has a stable and coachhouses in Seymour-yard, and I followed it to Hyde-parkcorner," and he there got into the cab; and then he gives us a detail of what passed in the course of the day. Now that is the evidence as far as he goes, namely, that this cabriolet came out of Seymour-yard, in which yard the defendant has a stable and coach-house, and that the name of Wilby was on the cabriolet in question.

Mr. Ball.-Your Lordship will remember also he said that he did not know the defendant, Wilby.

Mr. Justice Coltman.-Yes, he did not state that he knew who he was.

Then Hugh Mallett also speaks to these particulars, and his evidence is material upon this point of the case, because he is acquainted with Wilby; and he informs us that Wilby had the premises spoken of by last witness. He says, "I live in Well-street-yard, Seymour-place; the defendant has premises in Seymour-yard;" he says he used to keep a cabriolet, and the model seems like it. Then he says, "The model which seems to have been taken from the cabriolet hired on the 5th of October, is

very like Wilby's cabriolet." Then he says, "I told Wilby one day I heard them say in York-mews, that they were going to watch him out on that day, and I advised him to keep it in, and he told me he should not keep it in for any one." He appears to have been a person keeping several men at work, and occasionally working for the Patent Safety Company. Gentlemen, that is the whole of the evidence applicable to this point of the case; and you must be satisfied whether this cabriolet was used by Mr. Wilby, or by his authority. It is not necessary for the determining of that question, that he should have driven it himself; if he lets it out it comes to the same thing,if he gets the profits of it. Then it is necessary to identify the model before you as being a representation of the cabriolet that came out of this yard on the morning in question, and for that purpose Haynes tells you that on the 4th of October he endeavoured to hire it, but could not succeed, but on the 5th he did, and took it first to Hydepark-corner, afterwards to Mr. Duncan, the solicitor in the cause, and from thence it is traced to the office of the Patent Safety Company; it is taken by him to the place where the Patent Office is held, and there a drawing was taken of it, and twice copied, and from that drawing the model before you is taken, as being the model of the defendant's cabriolet, and that cabriolet he states to be correctly agreeing with the drawing taken. Now there is nothing else in his evidence that is very material. However in the course of cross-examination, he was asked, whether there were not cabriolets driving about town, marked "Hansom's Patent Safety" cabriolets, with a seat behind, and that appears to be true that there are, and in truth it appears that they had a number of cabriolets prepared to be launched according to Hansom's Patent Safety cabriolets, and they did not think it necessary, when they adapted it to a new machinery, to strike out the name of Hansom's Patent Cabs. He also proves,

which is relied upon here by the Gentleman who appears for the defendant, there was another cabriolet which was sent out in the year 1836. That is proved by Haynes, I think.

Mr. Ball.-No, it is Dolby's evidence.

Mr. Justice Coltman.-Yes. Before the time when the patent issued, in December, 1836, upon one occasion what he calls an experimental cabriolet, not then in a fit

state to go out; but they were experimentalizing, and probably for the purpose of some invention of this nature; that is, before the time when the patent was taken out, it was sent out for about twenty minutes. Gentlemen, it is quite trifling to suppose that that can at all diminish the claim of the party who had sent out the cabriolet when the invention was completed, that that should be supposed not to be new, because he had made an experiment of this sort; for the invention could not be perfected without experiments, and that does not at all detract from the claim of the plaintiffs; and in truth the principal point for your consideration is the evidence of the different engineers, who have been called to satisfy your minds that this cabriolet, sent out by the defendant, is an infringement of the original invention of the patent cabriolets, and that it is a new and useful invention. Now upon that subject Mr. Carpmael states,-he is a civil engineer, and engaged in patents, and has compared the two models: he never had heard of the plaintiffs' invention before the patent. These two models, he says, are made very well indeed. The defendant's model is on the principle of the patent. Then the model was handed up to him, and he explained how the thing stood. He says there is a great advantage in putting the driver's seat behind, as compared with others which have existed, and which were, in fact, the cabriolets used formerly; he says there is an advantage in putting the driver on the seat behind, instead of the side or the front. In the one case with the seat at the side, the driver was obliged to leave his horse to go down to assist the passenger out, and the horse has very often started off. With regard to the seat in front, the driver was in a very dangerous situation, and it was highly disagreeable to passengers, because of the dirt splashing in their face. Gentlemen, what you have to try is, whether the invention is new upon this part of the case. This witness says, in Adam's patent there is a seat behind, but at the same time the passenger gets in behind. It is with a view apparently to this circumstance they claim the application of the driving seat or box, so constructed that the passenger enters in front, because if they had claimed it generally with respect to the driving seat behind, Adam's patent had that before, and that would not have been new; but the novelty, as witness alleges, is having the driving seat behind, and the fure gets in in

front. He says, if the passenger gets in behind, you cannot apply the spring frame so conveniently as upon this plan. He says, heretofore, when such a frame was used, it formed part of the framing of the axle, so that it all formed one solid frame. That is with a view to the third point that is mentioned, namely, "the applying a safety frame and platform (by which the passengers enter in front), upon springs, where the driver's seat is placed either at the back or on the top, and in front, as above described." It is not new having a safety frame like this, but the novelty is, and which is claimed by the patent, that instead of forming one solid work, it is placed upon springs, and the consequence, he says, is, there would be a direct jar to the horse. He says, the making of safety-springs, in conjunction with the seat behind, is the essence of that part of the invention; therefore they were obliged to limit the invention, so as not to claim that invention which had formerly existed, of having the safety frame on springs, when the seat was by the side of the driver. That was done before, and if they had claimed it, it would not be new, and therefore they limit the claim as to the novelty, by applying it to springs, when the driver's seat is either at the top or behind. He says, the seat of the passenger is below the point of suspension, by which greater ease is attained; passengers can get in and out without the driver descending; and the door opens conveniently at the back, so that it protects the passengers getting in. He says,

the mode by which the shutter is applied is a new and useful contrivance; so is the odometer useful; it shows how far the cab has gone. He says, the odometer is not new, but only the mode of applying it to a carriage body on springs is new; therefore, it would not have done to have claimed that as new, therefore what is claimed is, 'the mode of communicating the motion of the wheel of the cabriolet to a suitable train of wheel-work for measuring the distance gone, as above described.' He says, I have compared Wilby's cabriolet with the patent cab; he says it is an infringement; the only difference is the absence of the odometer and the blind; but the safety frame is wholly on the principle of the cabriolet, but is not so efficient as in the patent cabriolet. In point of fact, the point of infringement according to their witness's statement, is the application of the driving seat or box to the back of the cab, and the safety frame. It appears to

be the case in both carriages, that the seat is behind, and the passenger can enter them in front. Secondly, they apply the safety frame upon springs, when the driver's seat is placed either before or behind. The third point of infringement is, "the mode of applying the side and back springs of cabs, whereby the passenger's seat is below the position of the springs, as above described." Now he says, the only substantial difference is the absence of the odometer and the blind: the frame is not so good, forward it is the same, but backwards, it does not extend so far back; he says, the seat behind is the same sort of seat that you see for the guard of a mail coach; that is not a driver's seat, and it requires considerable mechanical skill to construct such a cabriolet as has been done in this case. Then Mr. Cottam is called, and his evidence in substance is the same; and I am not aware that reading it will assist you much. Gentlemen, there have been also called before you three coachmakers; namely, Mr. Tilbury, Mr. Haughton, and Mr. Rackham, who all agree they have seen no cabriolet like this, with the exception of Hansom's Patent Safety cabriolet, which they consider has a resemblance to this cabriolet; but the engineers say it differs in some particulars, namely, it is not upon springs; and it was also different in this respect, that the point of suspension was more above the line of attraction. Now, Gentlemen, you will perhaps like to have the points you will have to determine before you. If you wish to look at them, there are five different points which the parties claim as being new; and if you are of opinion that they have established that they are new, then that part of the case is made out, and the verdict ought to be for the plaintiffs. Gentlemen, as to the plea that they were not the first inventors, there is no evidence produced before you to show they were not, and they have got the patent; and the remaining point for your consideration is, whether you are satisfied that Mr. Wilby used a cabriolet of this description, which is alleged to be an infringement of the patent of the plaintiffs. If he infringed any part of that which the party claims as new, that is an infringement, though he does not take the whole of it. Gentlemen, you will now consider your verdict.

Mr. M. D. Hill applied for a certificate under the 5 and 6 W. IV. c. 83, s. 3, that the validity of the patent came in question.