for a reasonable time, in a room open to the public, for the purpose of having its properties tested.

In Bramah v. Hardcastle (Holroyd, 81), which was an action for infringing a patent for a water-closet, it appeared that the patentee had made two or three of these machines before he obtained his patent; but it was admitted that this fact would not of itself invalidate the patent. (See also Lewis v. Marling, 4 C. & P. 57; and Moss v. Malings, 3 R. P. C. 378.)

Where the article had been manufactured for sale, and offered for sale, although not sold, this was held to be such a user of the invention as rendered a subsequently obtained patent bad. (Oxley v. Holden, 8 C. B. N. s. 666.)

Where delay occurred in the issue of a patent without the patentee's fault, the manufacture by him of articles before the date of the patent for the purpose of being sold after the date was held not to render the patent invalid. (Betts v. Menzies, 4 Jur. N. s. 477.)

In Wood v. Zimmer (Holt, N. P. C. 57) it appeared in evidence that a great quantity of verdigris made according to the patented process had been sold by the inventor in the course of four months before the patent was obtained, and Gibbs, C. J., held that the public sale of that which is afterwards made the subject of a patent, though sold by the inventor only, makes the patent void.'

In July 1875 a patent was granted to Thomas Muir for improvements in the manufacture of meal and flour. On the trial of an action for the infringement of this patent the patentee himself proved that in June 1875 he had made flour according to the patented process and had sold it in the ordinary way of business. The action was thereupon dismissed. (Germ Milling Co. v. Robinson, 3 R. P. C. 253, and see Re Adamson's Patent, 6 De G. M. & G. 420.)

Patterson, one of the three gas referees appointed by the Board of Trade under the City of London Gas Act of 1868, procured a patent for an improved mode of purifying coal gas on March 9, 1872. He had obtained a knowledge of the patented process in the course of his labours as

referee, and it appeared that it had been described by the three referees, including Patterson, in an official report, which, though dated January 31, 1872, and printed about that time, was kept back from the authorities to whom it ought to have been presented as soon as printed, until March 26. A suit for an infringement of the patent having been decided in Patterson's favour, the case went before the Court of Appeal (Patterson v. Gas Light and Coke Company, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 812), and then to the House of Lords (L. R. 3 App. Cas. 239), where it was held that the knowledge obtained in the discharge of his duty by one referee, and by him communicated to his colleagues, became at once public property, and could not be treated by them as confidential, nor could one of their number take out a patent for it.

It was contended in Thomson v. Batty (6 R. P. C. 84) that because the patentee of an invention relating to improvements in the mariner's compass had previously published a mathematical paper discussing the objects to be aimed at, the difficulties to be overcome, and the conditions to be satisfied in all attempts to improve the compass, he had disclosed his invention to the public and was not afterwards entitled to a patent. But the judge at the trial of an action for infringement held that what the patentee had done was very far from disclosing how the principles enunciated in the paper were to be realised in an improved instrument, and that as he had shown this by his specification after much thought and many experiments, he was entitled to a patent for his very useful invention.

Confidential Communications.-If, however, the inventor communicates his discovery to a few persons under the bond or seal of confidence, there is no publication. In Morgan v. Seward (1 W. P. C. 194), an action which arose out of Galloway's patent for an improved method of constructing paddle-wheels, it was given in evidence that before the date of the patent, Curtis, an English engineer, made for Morgan, the managing director of the Venice and Trieste Company, two pairs of wheels upon the principle mentioned in the

specification. Galloway, the patentee, gave instructions to Curtis under an injunction of secrecy, because he was about to take out a patent. The wheels when completed at Curtis's factory were not shown or exposed to the view of those who might happen to come there. After remaining a short time they were sent to Venice in April 1829. Curtis deposed that they were sold to the company, without saying by whom, and Morgan paid Curtis for them. Galloway

obtained a patent on July 22, 1829, and it was assigned by him to Morgan. Upon these facts it was contended that the invention, at the date of the letters patent, was not new, in the legal sense of that word. Parke, B., delivered the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, before whom the point was argued, in these words: The word "manufacture" in the statute must be construed in one of two ways: it may mean the machine when completed, or the mode of constructing the machine. If it mean the former, undoubtedly there has been no use of the machine, as a machine, in England, either by the patentee himself or any other person; nor, indeed, any use of the machine in a foreign country before the date of the patent. If the term "manufacture" be construed to mean "the mode of constructing the machine," there has been no use or exercise of it in England, in any sense which can be called “public." The wheels were constructed under the direction of the inventor, by an engineer and his servants, with an injunction of secrecy, on the express ground that the inventor was about to take out a patent, and that injunction was observed; and this makes the case, so far, the same as if they had been constructed by the inventor's own hands, in his own private workshop, and no third person had seen them whilst in progress. The operation, indeed, was disclosed to the plaintiff Morgan; but there is sufficient evidence that Morgan at that time was connected with the inventor, and designing to take a share in the patent. A disclosure of the nature of the invention to such a person under such circumstances must surely be considered private and confidential. The only remaining circumstance is,

that Morgan paid for the machines, with the privity of Galloway, on behalf of the steam company; but there was no proof that he paid more than the price of the machines, as for ordinary work of that description; and the jury would also be well warranted in finding that he did so with the intention that the machine should be used abroad only by this company, which, as it carried on its transactions in a foreign country, may be considered as a foreign company. It must be admitted that if the patentee himself had, before his patent, constructed machines for sale, as an article of commerce, for gain to himself, and been in the practice of selling them publicly-that is, to any one of the public who would buy-the invention would not be new at the date of the patent. This was laid down in the case of Wood v. Zimmer. . . . But we do not think that the patent is defeated on the ground of the want of novelty, and the previous public use or exercise of it, by a single instance of a transaction such as this.' And see the remarks of L. J. Fry in Humpherson v. Syer (4 R. P. C. 414; also the case of The Useful Patents Co. v. Rylands (2 R. P. C. 262).

...

Experiments by the Patentee.-It has been decided that when the disclosure of the secret took place during the course of experiments made by the patentee with the view of testing or improving the invention (such disclosure being unavoidable and not more than was necessary for the purpose), this will not take away the inventor's right to a patent.

Before applying for a patent the inventor of a machine entrusted it to a person for the purpose of trying experiments, and it was held that he had not thereby made it public. (Bentley v. Fleming, 1 Car. & K. 578.)

Shortly before an application was made for improvements in constructing and stopping bottles, 600 dozen of bottles made by the inventor according to the specification under the patent subsequently obtained were sent to a person as samples. It was held by Mr. Justice Chitty that they were sent out by way of experiment, and

that the fact did not render the patent invalid. (The Useful Patents Co. v. Rylands, 2 R. P. C. 262.)

Adamson invented certain machinery whilst engaged in the execution of a contract for the erection of a pier. This machinery he used on the works for four months before he applied for a patent. It was held that there had been public user, and not merely experiments inasmuch as he had derived a profit from the employment of the invention after its utility had been ascertained, and during all that time the public had free access to it. (Re Adamson's Patent, 6 De G. M. & G. 420.)

A series of experiments performed in the presence of others may however be not only successful, but also actually of pecuniary benefit to the inventor, and yet it will not necessarily be held that he has given the invention to the world. That the coincidence of actual immediate profit with the carrying on of experiments is not of itself sufficient to render a subsequently obtained patent void was decided in the case of Newall v. Elliott (4 C. B. N. s. 269), where it appeared that the inventor of a machine for paying out telegraph wire had not procured a patent until after he had laid down a cable in deep sea by means of the machine. Experiments on dry land had been indecisive; an opportunity for making decisive experiments was presented in the course of executing a Government contract for laying down a cable at sea. Such experiments were made, and the Court held that they did not amount to a gift of the invention to the world.

PRIOR PUBLICATION BY OTHER PERSONS.

The two following cases will show that prior publication of the invention by persons other than the patentee may take place without reference to public user, or publication in a book, or specification. Saxby obtained a patent in 1874 for improvements in signalling apparatus on railways. The invention comprised a combination of two old contrivances having the same object in view. To show prior publication the following facts were proved. The particular improvement in question had been previously suggested to the mind of a