The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-08-23 00:00:00

a poison, it was one of the most odious offences that
could be committed, and any man guilty of it—if capital
punishment was to be awarded in any case—rich•
deserved it for such an atrocious and odious offence. He
then directed the jury that, before they found a verdict,
they must be satisfied, beyond all reasonable doubt, that
the prisoner's hand was the hand that administered the
antimony which caused her death ; and unless they were
satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt they would acquit
the prisoner. That was the only duty he had to perform
as the verdict was that of the jury, and not his; but,
in order to assist them in coming to a right conclusion,
he would state to them the evidence, and make such
comments as he thought advisable, but the jury were
only to take those comments for what they were worth.
His lordship then proceeded to detail the evidence that
had been adduced, frequently pointing out the dis-
crepancies iu the statements, so far as connecting the
prisoner with the only hand that could have done it,
and by repeatedly alluding to the address of the pri-
soner's counsel, and the observations he had made. The
chief evidence to show that the prisoner had ad-
ministered the poison, was the witness Maguire.
Could the jury, he 'asked, believe him ? If so, the
guilt of the prisoner was established ; but, it
was for them to say, whether they believed him
or not. If they did not, then—so far as the admi-
nistration of the poision by the prisoner went—there
would, as he conceived, be a grave doubt. Having, at
considerable length, alluded to the other evidence, and
commented thereon, in much the same terms and order
as the counsel for the prisoner had done, he concluded
by saying : If the`• were satisfied, beyond all reason-
able doubt, that it tiva, the prisoner's hand who had
given the deceased the poison found in her body, and
that he did it for the purpose of causing her death, then
they would find him guilty : but if they had a reason-
able doubt that it was not his hand, and that it might
have been done by another, then they would return a
verdict of "Not guilty."
The jury immediately, without scarcely turning round
in the jury box, returned a verdict of " Not Guilty."
The prisoner was then discharged.
After disposing of some minor civil actions, the court
adjourned until this morning,

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY.
• (Before Mr. Baron WILDE.)

LAURIE V. STUBS.—The hearing of this case was re-
sumed yesterday morning, when the parties agreed to
withdraw a juror, and settle the case.

INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT.—MAYER 2'. SPENCE.—
The plaintiff in this case is a steel manufacturer, and
the defendant has also a steel manufactory at Working-
ton. From the opening statement of the Solicitor-
General, it appears that in the year 1850 a gentleman
named Ripey discovered a more economical and quicker
mode of making steel than that which had been
hitherto employed. He obtained a patent for his inven-
tion, and at his death the ownership of the patent passed
into the hands of the present plaintiff. It was found
that certain parts of the process had been practised by
other manfacturers, before the patent was obtained ; these
portions were therefore disclaimed, and a disclaimer had
been obtained from the Attorney-General. The proper
description of a patent is a condition essential to its
validity, and the patentee must within a given time
particularly describe and ascertain the nature of his
invention, and the exact manner in which it is to be
carried out. This was a condition with which Mr.
Ripey was bound to comply, and if there had been any
failure in description the patent would be void. The
object of the invention was, as we have already stated,
to employ a more effectual way of mannfacturing steel
for wrought-iron. Formerly the plan employed was to
first de-carbonise the wrought-iron, and then to partially
re-carbonise it to the point required for making it steel.
By the new process, however, the de-carbonisation is
stopped in the paddling furnace before completed,
and when just at such a point that it would, if carried
no further, produce steel. As regards the disclaimer
which was obtained from the Attorney-General, it stated
that the plaintiff only laid claim to the commencement
and continuation of what was called the finishing
process. This process was briefly as follows :—At that
particular stage in the manufacture of wrought iron (in
a reverberatory puddling furnace) at which blue flames
appear, the mass swells up, and small grains break
through the surface of the melted mass, It was nsual,
in the manufacture of molten metal, to add a certain
quantity of the iron, which, being of less specific
gravity than the molten metal, floats upon the surface.
As soon as these grains appear, the damper was to be
three-quarters shut. The effect of this would be, of
course, to diminish the quantity of air passing through
the fuel, and to diminish the quantity of heat in the furnace.
During the whole of this part of the process the heat
ought not to be raised above cherry redness; the blue
jets of flame gradually disappear, whilst the granular
formation increases, and the grains fuse together, the
mass assuming a wanny appearance. If these precau-
tions are not observed, and the beat is allowed 'to
increase, the mass will }crass more or less into wrought
iron, and no uniform product of steel can be
obtained. As soon as the metal has arrived
at this state the fire is stirred to keep it at the necessary
heat for the succeeding operation, and the mass, except
such portion which is being immediately used, is kept
covered with the cinder slag before. alluded to. The
granulated portion is then beat with a hammer and
worked into bars. In the course of the operation, great
care must be taken that the whole mass is not exposed
to the action of the air, as that would defeat the object;
a part of it must be withdrawn, and the remainder kept
well covered with the liquid slag. The plaintiff alleged
that the defendant manufactured steel in substantially
the same manner; he uses a puddling furnace, and
his process is the same, with the exception of the
dampers, which are dispensed with. In support of this
case a number of eminent gentlemen were called, who
stated, in their evidence, that having examined both the
plaintiff's and the defendant's process, they believed
them to be substantially the same. Mr. William Clay,
the first witness, was a managing partner of the Mersey
Steel and Iron Works. He said the process of con-
verting wrought iron into steel has been known
for many years past; the other method employed
by the plaintiff is of more recent -date. The Ines
to which puddled steel is applied are now
greatly extending, and it is extensively applied
in the structure of the hulls of light steamers for the
Indian and Russian navies ; also, for girders for
builders, for ordnance and gun carriages, and many
other purposes. The metal is much lighter and stronger
than iron ; and is worth, weight for weight, four times
as much iron. In consequence of this invention, steel
is now available for purposes to which it could not have
been before successfully applied. Mr. Campbell, con-
sulting and analytical chemist in London, was also
called. He had had considerable experience in the
manufacturing of iron ; and was one of the gentlemen
appointed by an order of the court to go to the works
of Messrs. Spence, and inspect their process of making
steel. He met there Mr. Spence and Dr. playfair.
The furnace in which the manufacture was carried on
was an ordjnary puddling one ; there was a place for a
damper ; but there was no damper, and its place was
supplied by the opening and shutting of doors near the
furnace. He considered their process to be the same as
the plaintiff's. Mr. Knowles, Q C., after the conclusion
of the evidence for the plaintiff, delivered a long address
to the jury, in the course of which he contended that
the specification disclaimer was defective, and contradic-
tory in its terms ; and that if the process was worked
according to it, no product of steel would be obtained. He
urged that the patent was a useless one inasmuch as the
process had been employed for many years by several
eminent firms in Staffordshire and in Leeds. It was
introduced into this country some time ago by a Ger-
exPcarlutscli nogf
the
ee mi twh
eo
rde,
Ger-
man. The two mtobset
hmeeattearinadl
namely, regulating
not by any means new,.but had been practised for a long
time. On the conclusion of Mr. Knowles' speech, the
court adjourned to this morning. The solicitor-general
(Sir Edward Atherton), with Mr. Highmarsh and Mr.
Russell, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Knowles,
Q.C., Mr. Manesty, Q.C., and Mr. Aston for the
defendant.

INSPECTION OP THE POLICE.---THE POLICE COURT.—
Mr. Raffles announced that he would sit at half-past
nine this morning, in consequence of an inspection of
the police which would take place by Colonel Woodford.
He adopted this course in order to allow all the men
who had night charges to be ready to attend the inspec-
tion, as it would be impossible for these men to attend
on Friday at the grand general inspection at Birchfield
Barracks.
Tun CANADIAN MAILS,— The Montreal Ocean
Steamship Company's chartered steamer Palestine will
sail from Liverpool for Montreal and Quebec this day,
(Thursday). The letter-box for this despatch will close
at the General Post-office; Liverpool, 1 30 p.m. ; yid
Londonderry, at 9 30 p.m. ; with a late fee of ld. at 10
pm., with a late fee of 3d. at 10 16 p.m.
WEST DERBY GUARDIANS.—The usual weekly meet-
ing of the West Derby Board of Guardians was held
yesterday in the board-room at the workhouse. The
chair was occupied by Mr. Hayes. The other members
present were Messrs. Roberts, Metcalf, Wareham, Pilling,
Mawdsley, Roscoe, Shaw, H. Edwards, 'Clark, William-
son, and Richmond. The number of inmates was re-
ported to be last week 305, admitted since 12, born 1,
discharged 43, dead 1 ; this week 304 ; last year corres-
ponding week, 264. Cheques for out-door relief were
issued as follows : Mr. Potts, £110.; Mr. Roberton, £3B ;
Mr. Lythgoe, £2l. A letter from the Poor-law Board
was read, relating to, the case of the woman who died
some time since at the workhouse, and directing that in
in future chloroform shall not be used.
THE GREAT TASMANIA.—The last numbe rof the St.
Helena Record contains an elaborate denial of the allega-
tions made by Captain Pond at the inquest on the invalid
soldiers who died at Liverpool in March last, on landing
from the Great Tasmania. Captain Pond was the officer
in charge of the troops, and his statement went to show
that on the vessel calling at St. Helena no adequate
supply could be obtained either of meat or vegetables,
and that for such of the latter as were offered extortion-
ate charges were demanded. The people of the island
feel it important to correct this impression, as the ptire
business of the place depends upon its, resources for
supplying ships ; and A great amount 9f f9rtnal and ap-
parently conclusive evidence has consequently been pre-
pared,, and transmitted to this country, to demonstrate
that the vessel might have been furnished with any
amoullt of fresh provisions at moderate market charges,
and that the authorities on board were alone responsible
for the calamities that resulted from any deficiency.