with the boiler, through which, when the cistern is filled, the water runs and fills the boiler. When the water in the cistern becomes warm, by absorbing the heat of the steam and condensed water in the condenser, through the plate n, and it is necessary to re-fill the cistern with cold water, to carry on the condensation, it can be admitted through the feed-pipe o, which, passing to the bottom of the cistern, and having greater specific gravity than the warm water contained therein, displaces that water, and forces it up through the cock into the boiler.-[Inrolled in the Inrolment Office, June, 23, 1835.]

TO ELIJAH GALLOWAY, of Westmoreland-place, City-road, in the county of Middlesex, engineer, for certain improvements in steam-engines, which improvements are applicable to other purposes.-[Sealed 23rd December, 1834.]

THIS invention relates to that description of engine called rotary, and consists in applying a peculiarly constructed piston, within a steam-chamber or barrel, of an elliptical form, in such a manner, that although the piston drives the main shaft or axis, it is not directly affixed thereto, but is capable of a sliding movement in the direction of its length over the shaft, so as at all times to touch the inner periphery of the elliptical steam-chamber, and keep the sides steam-tight. In order to effect this, the main shaft passes through the two ends or covers of the steam-chamber at a point excentric to the semi-transverse section of the ellipse, and upon the minor axis.

a,

The drawing in Plate III., represents a transverse vertical section of an engine, constructed according to this invention. is the elliptical steam-chamber of the engine; b, the main shaft or axis, which passes through stuffing boxes in the covers or ends of the engine. c, is the piston, which is composed of two plates d, d, with recesses e, e, formed in them, to allow sufficient play for the links f, f, which are fastened by pin-joints to the inner ends of the recesses, the other ends of the links being connected to the levers g, g, fixed on the main shaft b. By this mode of connection, the piston will be constrained to move in such a manner, that a line drawn through it, as at h, will, at all times, intersect the centre of the axis b. i, i, i, i, are filling pieces of metal, wood, or other material; their object being to fill up the space below the piston, in order to prevent waste of steam in working the engine. The induction and eduction pipes for the steam, are inserted into one end of the engine, at the positions indicated by the dotted circles j, k.

The following is the mode of working the engine :-The piston, (which is now in the position that may be called its dead centre,)

is to be placed, by means of the fly-wheel of the engine, so as to leave open the induction pipe j, for the admission of the steam, which, acting on one side of the piston, will force it to rotate within the elliptical steam-chamber a, the fly-wheel equalizing the power transmitted to the main shaft b, and also carrying the piston over the dead centre, before mentioned; a continuous rotary motion will thus be given to the main shaft b.

The above arrangement may be varied in its minor details. These improvements can be applied to pumps, all the alteration that is necessary to be made, being to cause the induction pipe to pass into the well, or other source of supply, and the eduction pipe will become the discharging pipe. Rotary motion being then communicated to the main shaft, will drive round the piston, and cause the water to be raised and forced in a continuous stream.

The patentee claims the application of a sliding piston to a steam-chamber or engine of an elliptical form; such piston driving the main shaft or axis, although it is not directly affixed thereto, but is capable of sliding thereon, in the direction of its own length, as described.- [Inrolled in the Inrolment Office, June, 1835.]

TO JOSEPH HANSOM, of Hinckley, in the county of Leicester, architect, for an improved vehicle, for the conveyance of various kinds of loads on common and other roads.-[Sealed 23rd December, 1834.]

THIS invention consists in a new arrangement of parts to form more commodious vehicles for various purposes than are now in

use.

In Plate III., fig. 1, is a side view of a passenger carriage, constructed according to this invention. The wheels of this are much larger than usual, and turn upon short spindles, instead of the ordinary axletree, the inner ends of the spindle being secured in boxes a, (shewn by dotted lines,) in the frame-work of the carriage. By this arrangement, the body can be placed nearer the ground, and the centres of the wheels may be made to coincide with the line of traction.

Fig. 2, represents a side view of a carriage, the wheels of which are removed, and two rings or zones b, substituted for them. Against the inner edges of these zones, four friction rollers c, attached to the framing of the carriage, act, and cause the rings to revolve, when power is applied to draw the carriage forward.

Fig. 3, shows an improved waggon, the body of which can be easily separated from the framing, and as speedily attached. d,

is the body, suspended by metal bands e, from two cross-heads ƒ, connected by rods g, with a square balance beam h, hinged to the axletree of the waggon. From this beam a lever i, projects, having a rope attached to its end, which passes under the pulley j, to the windlass k, mounted on bearings in the pole 7, which extends horizontally forward from the axletree, and carries the shafts of the waggon. m, is a link or staple, which is slipped over the end of the lever i, for the purpose of retaining the body of the waggon in its raised position.

To lower the body of the waggon, the end of the lever i, is released from the link m, when the weight of the body will cause it to descend, elevating the end of the lever i; the descent of the body being regulated by means of the windlass k. The body is raised again by winding up the rope until the lever i, returns to the position shewn in the drawing.

The patentee claims, firstly, a passenger carriage, constructed on the principles herein before stated, and shewn in fig. 1, in which the main body part of the carriage is connected with the wheels, and the wheels with each other, by spindles, instead of by an axle.

Secondly. The form of passenger carriage, constructed on the principles aforesaid, and represented in fig. 1, in which wheels of the ordinary form are dispensed with, and instead thereof, rings or zones, with friction rollers, or other equivalent rotary agents working therein, are used; which rings or zones girdle or circumscribe the body of the carriage, at points removed more or less inwards from the outer sides of the said body.

Thirdly. The form of waggon, constructed on the principles aforesaid, and shewn in fig. 3, where the part appropriated to the load, or main body part, is suspended below the centre of bearing, and in such manner, that the same can be conveniently detached from the wheels when loaded, or attached when unloaded.—[Inrolled in the Inrolment Office, June, 1835.]

Scientific Adjudication.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

BEFORE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE DENMAN.

June 25, 1842.

BERRY v. CLAUDET.

This was an action brought by Mr. Beard, proprietor of the Daguerreotype patent,* in the name of Berry, (the original patentee, from whom the patent right had been purchased,) against Mr. Claudet, to compel him to give up a license he had obtained to use this invention. Previous to the assign

For specification of this patent see Vol. XVI. p. 1, of our present series. VOL. XXI.

E

ment of this patent to Mr. Beard, it appears that a license had been granted to Mr. Claudet, by Messrs. Newton and Berry, agents to Messrs. Daguerre and Niepce, the inventors, empowering him to use a certain number of machines for taking Daguerreotype pictures, and dispose of the same,—consequently the patent right could only be purchased by Mr. Beard, subject to the existing license. There was, however, a clause in the said license, empowering Mr. Claudet to relinquish such license, and to recover the purchasemoney, in the event of the patent being sold.

The reason for introducing this clause was, that it having being considered probable, from the importance of the invention and its extensive usefulness, as an auxiliary to the fine arts, that either the English Government, the Royal Society, or some other public body, might purchase the patent right, for the purpose of throwing it open to the public,-Mr. Claudet's license would then have become useless.

This case was argued on the 7th of June last; it came before the Court, on a demurrer to the declaration. One of the points argued, and the only one on which the judgment proceeded, was the construction of the clause in the license granted to the defendant by the plaintiff, to use the Daguerreotype apparatus. The facts and arguments are so fully stated in the judgment, as to make it unnecessary to repeat them.

The Counsel for the plaintiff was Mr. FORTESCUE,-for the defendant, Mr. PEACOCK.

JUDGMENT.

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:-" This was an action of covenant against the defendant for not re-selling and transferring to the plaintiff or his principal all his interest under an indenture of license to exercise a patent. There is no express covenant to that effect in the indenture, but the plaintiff contends that there is an implied covenant, it being the manifest intention of the parties apparent upon the face of the indenture, that the defendant should, under the circumstances, re-sell and transfer.

By the in lenture, the plaintiff as agent to two French gentlemen (and as trustee for whom he had obtained a patent,) in consideration of £200, granted to the defendant a license to use the patent for the remainder of the term. The indenture contains a covenant, that if the plaintiff should grant licenses to other persons on terms more advantageous than those granted to the defendant, he would pay the defendant such sum of money as would put him on an equality with those persons; and then the indenture proceeds: Provided, and it is hereby further agreed and declared, that if, at any time during the continuance of the Letters Patent, and the license hereby granted, any contract or agreement should be made or entered into, by or on behalf of the said Daguerre and Niepce, with the government of Great Britain, or with any person whatsoever, for the purchase of the rights and privileges granted by the Letters Patent, it shall be compulsory upon the said Daguerre and Niepce, their executors, administrators, and assigns, to re-purchase the interest hereby granted to the said Claudet, or such other persons as aforesaid, by paying to the said Claudet, or to such other persons as aforesaid, the consideration money paid by Claudet for the purchase of the license hereby granted, and giving him or her full power to dispose of and re-sell for his or their benefit, all the stock and apparatus, plates, designs, or tracings, he or she may then have on hand unsold.'

The declaration then states, that the rights and privileges granted, have been disposed of to a person named Beard; that the plaintiff and his principals have been ready to re-purchase by paying to the defendant the consideration money, and giving him full power to dispose of the stock on hand, but that the defendant had refused to re-sell or transfer his interest upon the terms aforesaid.

* Lord Denman, Chief Justice Pattison, Williams, and Coleridge-Judges.

The case of Saltown v. Houston, in 1st Bingham; Sampson v. Easterly, in 9th Barnewall and Cresswell, and the same case in error in 6th Bingham, were cited, to show that the Court will collect from all the words of an instrument what is the intention of the parties, and that no particular words or expressions are necessary to constitute a covenant.

Other cases also were referred to, to illustrate the same doctrine, as to which no doubt whatever can be entertained.

Acting upon that doctrine, and looking to the whole of this indenture, we are satisfied the intention of the parties was to make the re-purchase of the defendant's license by the payment of the consideration money, compulsory upon the granter of the license, Daguerre and his colleague only; and that the proviso was intended for the benefit of the defendant, and was not meant to be compulsory on him; and that he may, if he please, relinquish it.

We are therefore of opinion that there was no covenant expressed or implied."

Judgment is therefore given for the defendant.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

BEFORE SIR J. T. COLERIDGE, KT.

July 4, 5, & 6, 1842.

QUEEN v. JEREMIAH BYNNER.

Counsel for the Crown, the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, Messrs. FITZROY KELLY, HINDMARCH, & H. HILL.-For the defendant, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Messrs. M. HILL, CROMPTON, and WEBSTER.

This was a writ of scire facias to repeal a patent, granted to the defendant, for improvements in lamps, dated 9th December, 1837, (see Vol. XIV., p. 115, of our present Series.) The invention was called "the solar lamp," and consisted in forming a deflecting surface, in connection with a glass chimney, by which the air, in passing to supply the burner of the lamp, was caused to impinge upon the flame above the point of ignition.

The principal part of the evidence consisted in the production of a number of old lamps, said to possess the same properties, and scarcely if at all differing in the construction of the essential part, called the deflector.

Lamps on the principle of Simpson's Patent of 1812, and of Upton's Patent of 1827, were produced to the scientific witnesses, and their opinions taken thereon, as to identity in principle with that described in the defendant's specification. The deficiency and ambiguity of the specification and its drawings, were insisted upon, and ultimately five points were left for the consideration of the Jury, viz.-First: Whether a precise size of aperture in the deflector and height above the flame, was essential to produce the effect?-The Jury were of opinion that it was essential.

Second-Whether the specification, aided by the drawings, sufficiently described such size and height?—The Jury considered that the specification and drawings did not show it.

Third: Whether the peculiar glass chimney described, as essential to produce the fullest effect, was beneficial; and whether the invention could be used with ordinary chimnies of glass?-The Jury found that the peculiar glass chimney, described, would not produce the fullest effect, and that the invention could not be used with ordinary chimnies of glass.

Fourth-Whether the invention was new at the time of granting the patent?-The Jury considered that it was not new at that time.

Fifth-Whether the patentee BYNNER was the true and first inventor ?— To which the Jury replied,-he was not.

The verdict therefore went for the Crown, and the Patent was repealed.