strength of wire rope, of 4 inches circumference, with various specimens of hempen rope, varying in size from 5 inches to 7, and found the former to be of greater strength than the latter. Had never known the plaintiff's rope to break, although the swivels and splicings had, in some instances, given way. The hempen rope, when in use, was subject to continued breakages, having known the rope to break two or three times in one day. Witness considered the invention as useful, and more economical, from there being less wear and tear, as also it being of smaller circumference, and less in weight.

Mr. Woods, engineer of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, was next examined, and deposed to the plaintiff's wire rope being used in the tunnel, at the Liverpool terminus, and answering the purpose.

Mr. Leslie, the manager of the Anderton Carrying Company, in the course of his examination, stated:-"That he had applied the wire rope of the plaintiff to raising weights, and also on an inclined plane. Since he had tested its properties, he was convinced, that it was an invaluable invention, and a great benefit to the community." On the cross examination of this witness, he was asked:- "Whether he had not seen twisted wire applied to the corks of porter bottles?"-The learned counsel for the defendant contending, from the fact of wire having been twisted for such a purpose, that it came under the designation of wire cord or rope, the original invention of which the plaintiff claimed.-This closed the case on the part of the plaintiff.

Mr. Corrie, on the part of the defendant, addressed the Jury on the question at issue, which was :-Whether, in the first place, the plaintiff was the inventor of the manufacture claimed under the patent? and next:- Whether such manufacture was an invention coming under the statute of James? He then put in, as evidence, the drawing which accompanied the specification of the patent of 1837, to which he directed the attention of the Jury, the learned counsel contending, that the twisted wire rope was comprehended in such patent, and, therefore, could not be claimed under the patent of 1839. To illustrate this view of the case, he

VOL. XXI.

N

proceeded to remark on the similarity displayed in the patents of 1837 and 1839, as related to the twisting of the wire; it appearing, however, that in the former case the wire was simply entwined in forming a splice, while in the latter it was regularly laid in stands, and formed as a hempen rope. He further proceeded to descant on the principle having been applied long ere the patent of the plaintiff's, twisted wire or cord being used in securing the corks of porter bottles, as well as for suspending the ladies, at the opera, in nubibus.

The learned Judge, in addressing the Jury, commented on the objections raised, stating, that the Jury could not do otherwise than give a verdict for the plaintiff, which was done accordingly. The counsel for the defendant, as in the former case, asked for leave to move the Court, which was granted, and the Judge certified costs.

CONVICTION FOR PIRACY OF A
REGISTERED DESIGN.

The summary way in which cases of this kind are disposed of, not been generally known, we think the following may be interesting to our readers, as it is one of the first which has taken place under the registration act.

Mr. Bingham, a magistrate at Worship Street, gave his judgment on a case, instituted by Messrs. Kipling and Co., Carpet Manufacturers at Darlington, against Mr. G. Johnson, of Finsbury Square, for publishing and disposing of, for profit, without the licence or consent of the plaintiffs, a carpet, the designs or pattern of which had been registered agreeable to the Act 2nd Victoria, chap. 17. There was a second summons against the defendant, for an alleged piracy of another of Messrs. Kipling and Co's designs, which it was agreed should be determined by the magistrate's first decision. The counsel for the plaintiffs was Mr. Clarkson, for the defendant, Mr. Chambers.

Mr. Joseph Ratheray, agent for the plaintiffs, stated, "That,

on the 15th of March, he registered for them the two new patterns of carpets now produced. The pieces of carpet, sold by the defendant, were copies of the registered patterns, slightly varied. On the 20th or 21st of June, he met the defendant in Newgate Street, and whilst conversing on the subject, the latter said, 'That he had been to the Registration Office, to ascertain whether the patterns had been registered or not, and he found that they had."" Cross-examined by Mr. Chambers.—“The drawing now pointed out, is technically called 'the design,' and its combination with the other parts, constitutes the finished and original pattern."

A piece of floor-cloth being then shewn to the witness, he said, "That the figures in it bore some resemblance to the registered design, but there was a difference in the filling up, such as the substitution of a line for a diamond, and so on."

Mr. Henry Ridley Ellington, manager of the plaintiffs' business in Newgate Street, proved "That he purchased the pieces of carpet, now produced, at Mr. Johnson's shop, in Finsbury Square, on the 15th of July, and that Mr. Johnson then said, 'He conceived he had a right to sell them without reference to their being registered.'”

The pieces of carpet, sold by the defendant, being now compared with the registered patterns, were found to resemble them in the principal figures, but the filling-up was slightly varied.

Mr. Bingham, in giving judgment, said, "It was his opinion, that the design of the carpet produced by the plaintiffs, was an original design; that the one sold by the defendant was a copy, and that he sold it, knowing that no consent had been given. Upon all the points, it was a case within the meaning of the Act, which rendered the defendant liable to a penalty of from five to fifty pounds."

The defendant was then ordered to pay a mitigated penalty of five pounds and the costs, upon each of the two summonses.

List of Patents

That have passed the Great Seal of IRELAND, from the 17th June to the 17th of August, 1842, inclusive.

To Mathias Nicolas La Roche Barrie, of St. Martin's-lane, in the county of Middlesex, manufacturer of cotton, for an improvement in the manufacture of a fabric, applicable to sails and other purposes. -Sealed 1st July.

Henry Barron Rodway, of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, wine merchant, for improvements in the manufacture of

horse-shoes.-Sealed 1st July.

Gottlieb Boccius, of the New Road, Shepherd's Bush, in the county of Middlesex, Gent., for certain improvements in gas, and on the methods in use,-or burners for the combustion of gas.-Sealed 1st August.

Thomas Henry Russell, of Wednesbury, in the county of Stafford, iron tube-maker, and Cornelius Whitehouse, of the same place, for improvements in the manufacture of welded iron tubing.Sealed 3rd August.

Joseph Clisild Daniell, of Tiverton Mills, near Bath, for improvements in making and preparing food for cattle.-Sealed 3rd August.

Michael Coupland, of Pond-yard, Park-street, Southwark, millwright and engineer, for improvements in furnaces.-Sealed 4th August.

Robert Warrington, of South Lambeth, in the county of Surrey, Gent., for improvements in the operations of tanning.-Sealed 6th August.

List of Patents

Granted for SCOTLAND, subsequent to July 22nd, 1842.

To William Newton, of the Office for Patents, 66, Chancery-lane, in the county of Middlesex, civil engineer, for certain improved machinery for excavating, dredging, and removing earthy and stony matters, in the construction of rail-roads, canals, cleaning of rivers, harbours, and redeeming of marshy or alluvial soils; also for boring rocks, indurated clay, and other earthy matters, for the purpose of blasting and removing the same; the whole to be worked by steam and other power,-being a communication from abroad.-Sealed 25th July.

Thomas Hendry, of Glasgow, Scotland, mechanic, for certain improvements in machinery for preparing and combing wool and other fibrous materials.-Sealed 27th July.

Thomas Waterhouse, of Edgeley, in the County of Chester, manufacturer, for a certain improvement or improvements in machinery used for carding, drawing, and roving cotton, wool, flax, silk, and other similar fibrous material.-Sealed 27th July.

John Osbaldeston, of Blackburn, in the County of Lancaster, metal heald maker, for improvements in looms for weaving.Sealed 29th July.

William Geeves, of Old Cavendish-street, in the County of Middlesex, Gent., for improvements in machinery for cutting cork. Sealed 29th July.

John Woodcock, of Manchester, in the County of Lancaster,— millwright, for certain improvements in the construction of steam-engines.-Sealed 1st August.

Alexander Johnston, of Hillhouse, in the county of Edinburgh, Esq., for certain improvements on carriages, which may also be applied to ships, boats, and various other purposes, where locomotion is required.-Sealed 2nd August.

Julius Seybell, of Golden-square, Westminster, in the County of Middlesex, manufacturing chemist, for certain improvements in the manufacture of sulphate of soda and chlorine.-Sealed 11th August.

Benjamin Biram, of Wentworth, in the County of York, colliery viewer, for certain improvements in the construction and application of rotary engines.-Sealed 11th August.

John Anthony Tielens, of Fenchurch-street, in the City of London, merchant, for improvenients in machinery or apparatus for knitting, being a communication from abroad.-Sealed 22nd August.

New Patents

SEALED IN ENGLAND.

1842.

To Thomas Bell, of St. Austell, in the county of Cornwall, mine agent, for improvements in the manufacture of copper.-Sealed 29th July-6 months for inrolment.

Jules Lejeune, of North-place, Regent's Park, engineer, for improvements in accelerating combustion, which improvements may be applied in place of the blowing machines now in use.Sealed 29th July-6 months for inrolment.