one piece (instead of in two distinet pieces, each to be welded separately to the shank) a hole being left through the middle of one piece, which forms the two arms, to receive the end of the shank. I think a patent cannot be maintained for making in one entire piece that which was before made in two pieces; and plaintiff's mode of uniting the shank to the one piece was used in mushroom anchors and adze anchors; and being so like that used in a pick-axe and hammer, I do not think the mere introducing the shank of the anchor, (which may be called the handle) in so similar a mode, is an invention for which a patent can be sustained. The mushroom anchor and adze anchors, though used as mooring anchors, and not carried with ships, are still ships anchors, and the analogy between them and the plaintiff's is so close, that it does not appear to me that this discovery can be considered so far new, as to be proper ground for a patent; it is nothing more than making in one piece what was before made in two, and introducing the shank into this kind of anchor in the way a handle is introduced into a pick-axe. I think the patent is wholly void, and that there must be a new trial.

66

Mr. Justice Best: I am of the same opinion. In the case of Hill v. Thompson, the Court of Common Pleas, with great reluctance, came to the conclusion, that a patent taken out too large, is void, not only for the excess, but altogether. Respecting this case, the Lord Chancellor had previously said: The Judge, Mr. Justice Dallas, in his direction to the jury, stated, as the law on patents, that the invention must be novel, useful, and intelligibly described in the specification. I will go further, and say, that the specification must not attempt to cover more than that which, being matter both of actual and useful discovery, is the only proper subject of a patent. If a patentee seeks by his specification any more than he is strictly entitled to, his patent is rendered ineffectual, even to the extent to which he would otherwise have been entitled. A patent may be valid for a new combination of materials previously in use for the same purpose, or for a new method of applying such materials, but the specification must clearly express that it is only for such new combination or application, and not lay claim to the merit of original invention in the use of materials."

When this case was first presented to me, I thought the mooring chain was a new combination of old materials, and that the patent was good; I now doubt that, for the specification cannot stand as a description of a new combination of known principles; it claims the form of the link which is not new; it says, the object to be attained is to get the greatest possible strength from a given quantity of materials; as far as that is to be done by introducing a stay across the link in a new mode, viz. with broad ends, supporting and embracing the sides, it would be new; but he VOL. VIII. SECOND SERIES.

20

goes on to say, "that of all forms for the links, that which shall be able to convert a lateral into an end strain, by supporting the opposites sides of the links, is to be preferred:" here I think it claims the merit of originally using links, with stays across, such as have been used long before.

The invention claimed as to the anchor is, that he avoids the welding of the two arms separately to the shank; but his mode of uniting had been used before in the case of mushroom and adze anchors, and in the pick-axe. If he had stated in the specification, that as welding weakens the anchor, he had first applied to the making of ships anchors, that mode of uniting the shank to the two arms, which had been long practised in making other instruments, viz. making the two arms in one piece, instead of two, then it would have been a question whether such an application could be considered a new invention for a patent; but it is unnecessary to consider that question, because he has claimed the mode of avoiding welding, as a new discovery, when it was not new; he has taken his patent for more than he was entitled to, and that avoids the patent in toto. The King has been deceived by the representation made by the patentee, that he had the merit of inventing two things, when he had only discovered one: the Crown might have considered the discovery of the two sufficient ground for granting the patent, when the one alone would not have been thought worthy.

In a deed for grant of lands, if it contained three distinct conveyances, of three distinct estates, on three considerations, one might be set aside and another be good; but if the grant were upon one consideration, which was bad, the whole would be void, because the consideration will fail altogether. In this case the consideration to induce the King to grant the patent, was the statement made by the plaintiff in his petition, that he had made three inventions, when in fact he had made only two; the united consideration upon which the whole grant was made, is therefore void, and consequently the grant itself is void. I am of opinion there ought to be a new trial.

Salmon against Hampson. An Action for infringement of Salmon's Patent of 1806, for his self-adjusting Truss, for the relief and cure of Ruptures. Tried in the King's Bench in 1821, before Chief Justice Abbott, Verdict for Plaintiff.

This truss is a most valuable invention, which has proved of the greatest service to many thousands of individuals, afflicted with hernia.

The King against Lodge and Bittleston. A scire facias to repeal their patent of 20th June 1820, for certain improvements in the construction and application of Spring trusses or bandages for the relief and cure of Hernia. Tried in the King's Bench, 25ih

October 1822, before Lord Chief Justice Abbott. Verdict for the Crown.

The proceedings were at the suit of Mr. Salmon, who had obtained a patent in 1811, for an invention, which was proved to be substantially the same as that described in the specification of Lodge and Bittleston's patent.

Hall against Gervas and Francis Boot. An Action for infringement of Hall's patent, 3d November 1817, for a method of improving every kind of Lace or Net. Tried in the King's Bench, 17th December 1822, before Lord Chief Justice Abbott. Verdict for the Patentee.

The invention is to extend the lace net horizontally, and draw it by machinery, with a slow and regular motion, over the flames of gas lights, which flames are urged upwards by a current of air rising through a chimney that is fixed over them, and above the lace, so as to draw the flames upwards through the meshes of the lace, in order to singe and burn away all superfluous fibres from the cotton thread, of which the lace is composed, thereby improving the beauty of the lace very greatly.

The infringement was not proved by very direct evidence: but it was proved, that the defendant had set up the business of bleaching and clear starching lace, and ordered the gas company's pipes to be laid into his workshops to supply a certain number of burners, afterwards the arrangement of the pipes was altered, without any assignable cause, and carried into a part of the shop which was partitioned off, and kept very carefully closed; also, a gas-meter having been applied by the gas company to the entrance pipe, that they might be paid according to the quantity of gas consumed, it was observed, that the consumption was excessive for the professed number of burners, or the size of the shops.

In defence, it was proved, that flame of charcoal, or waste paper, had been long used for singing off the superfluous fibres from lace sleeves, mitts and stockings, but they were always stretched upon a sleeve board, or a wooden leg, during the singing, and the flame was not urged by the draught of a chimney, so as to burn up through the interstices of the lace, in order to singe withinside of the meshes, which is the essence of Mr. Hall's invention. No objection was raised against the specification. Lord Chief Justice Abbott: "There can be no doubt but the verdict must pass against both the defendants; one of them has the gas pipe laid into his house."

Barber against Walduck. An action for infringement of Barber's Patent of 1821, for an improved manner of making Hats. Tried at Lancaster in the summer of 1823, before Mr. Justice Holroyd. Patentee nonsuited.

The patentees were hat manufacturers; and one of their men, whom they called as a witness, proved, that he himself invented

the improvement which was the subject of the patent, whilst employed in their workshop. Mentioned on the trial, Bloxam v. Elsee, 1825.

Note.-Messrs. Barker and Harris had a patent, in 1821, for improvements in the method of cleaning furs and wools used in the manufacture of hats, from kemps and hairs; it is stated Barber in the above report, by mistake.

Savory against Price. An action for infringement of Savory's Patent of 1815, for a method of making a neutral salt, or powder, possessing all the properties of the medicinal spring at Seidlitz, under the name of Seidlitz Powder. Tried in the Court of King's Bench 17th December 1823, before Chief Justice Abbott. The Patentee was nonsuited.

The specification gave three distinct recipes for preparing the ingredients, and then directed two scruples of each of the three ingredients resulting from those recipes to be dissolved in half a pint of water, in order to produce the imitation of Seidlitz water. It was proved by following the directions given in the specification, the result was obtained, and that it was new and useful. It appeared that the three recipes were only common processes for preparing three well known substances, viz. Rochelle salts, carbonate of soda, and tartaric acid, which were sold in shops before the date of the patent; and those three substances being used as directed, constituted the Patent Seidlitz Powder; the specification did not give any name to the ingredients resulting from the three recipes; but gave those recipes without comment, as if they were part of the method of making the Seidlitz powder.

Lord Chief Justice Abbott: "It is the duty of a patentee to specify the plainest and most easy way of producing that for which the patent is granted, and to make the public acquainted with the mode which he himself adopts. By reading this specification, we are led to suppose a laborious process necessary to the production of the ingredients, when in fact we might go to any chemist's shop and buy the same things ready made. The public are misled by this specification, which tends to make people believe that an elaborate process is essential to the invention; it cannot be supported." The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.

Morton against Barclay and others. An action in Scotland, for infringement of Morton's Patent of 1818, for a method of dragging Ships out of water on dry land. Tried in the Jury Court at Edinburgh, 15 March 1824, before the Lord Chief Commissioner, Lord Gillies, and Lord Mitmilly. Verdict for the Patentee. The invention is a substitute for a dry dock for repairing ships. It consists of a horizontal frame or very low carriage with rollers, or small wheels adapted to run upon an inclined plane or slip, such as is commonly used for building ships;

also a strong crane work to drag that carriage up the plane, by a chain, when a ship is placed upon the carriage, which can run down the inclined plane so far under water that the ship can be floated over it. A beam which extends along the middle of the carriage, supports blocks on which the keel of the ship is to rest; and there are several cross beams, on which other blocks are fitted in grooves so as to slide to or from the middle beam, in order to adapt them to block up under the bottom of the vessel, and keep her upright on the carriage: these sliding blocks can be drawn into their places under the bottom, as the vessel settles down on the carriage, after the keel is come to rest on the blocks.

The pursuer erected several such patent slips at various places in England and Scotland under his patents, and the defenders made one near Glasgow in infringement thereof; whereupon the pursuer raised an action in the Court of Session; the defenders, in answer, denied any infringement, alleging that their machine was different from the pursuer's. The question was remitted to the Jury Court, where defenders did not appear, thereby admitting the infringement. The merit and utility of the invention was proved by the testimonies of several naval officers, engineers, and ship builder; several of them taken in writing in England on commission.

The Lord Chief Commissioner made some observations as to the law of Scotland in cases of this nature, and that he thought it would be a desideratum to have the point settled. The pursuer's advocate submitted, that since the Union, the practice in regard to patents was the same in Scotland as in England. The Lord Chief Commissioner said, that as the defenders did not appear, the court must suppose their cause indefensible; he had never seen a case before any court more fully made out than the pursuer's. The practice in England rendered it necessary for the pursuer to make out, 1st. That the invention was original, and was made by the patentee himself; 2nd. That his patent right had been invaded. In this case it had been proved that the invention was original; that it was useful, and preferable to dry docks; that it would be of the utmost utility in places where there was not a rise and fall of tide; that the shipwrights working in the dry, may work longer days than in a dock, and can more conveniently use long planks. With regard to the law in questions of this nature, he would say nothing; he believed that this was the first case which had been brought to trial upon similar issues. No amount of actual damage had been proved, and it was only a question of the right. The jury found a verdict for the pursuer, with one shilling damages and costs.-Printed Notes of the Trial.

Bloxam and another, assignees of H. and S. Fourdrinier, bankrupts, against Elsee. An action for Infringement of Gamble's