The Express.
London, England, 1864-02-03 00:00:00

NIWALL r. ELLIOI7.-PATII T CASE.

Thin was an action for the infringement of a patent for
improvements in the mode of laying down submarine electric
cables.

Mr. Crave, Q.C., Mr. Denman Q.C., Mr. Serjekat
Bal-
laatioe, Mr. Quaao. Mr. L. Smith, and Mr. Merkby were
coupes' for the pleintiff ; sod Mr. M. Clambers, Q.C., Mr.
Cleaebv. Q.C., and Mr. Bidder for the defeedant. _
•

The plaintiff was • manufacturer of electric sides, having
works at Gateshead and • shop in the Strand, and the de.
feodaut carried on the same trade at East Greenwich and
Great George-street. %Westminster. The alleged ioventioe,
for which • patent was taken out in 1835, consisted of an
apparatus for enabling the cable to be laid down quickly
without handling it in the hold of the vessel, and without
the risk of its getting into kinks, or knots. The rope is coiled
in an annular chamber, and the outgoing parts pass inside
certain rings. The infringement complained of was com-
mitted by the defendant in laying down the cable between
Malta and Alexandria some time in 1861. An injunction
was granted by Wine-Chancellor Wood to restrain the
defendant from using a similar apparatus to that of the
plaintiff, but it was diriolved by the Lords Justices, and
the plaintiff DOW sought to establish his right to the inven-
tion by the verdict of • jury.
Mr. Grove, Q.C., in his opening statement, explained
that in the &rut instance the defendant fitted up the vessel
with an lipping= nearly identical with the plaintiffs ; but
before she sailed front England • portion of it was removed,
and the iofringemeut of the patent was oot actually consum-
mated until she arrived at Malta. The defendant contended
that under these circumstances the plaintiff could not sue,hi m
for the infringement of the letters patent, inasmuch as it
took place beyond British dominions. The learned counsel
observed that • patent for as improved compass, • new l
de-
scription of rope,or anything else intended chiefly for nautical
purposes, would be useless to the inventor if any person
oould latrine it on board • British ship as soon as she got
beyond our shores. He submitted that as an English ship
was British territory, an user of • patent on board, in what-
ever part of the world she might be, without the sanction of
the patentee, mounted to an iofringement.
The Lord Chief Baron—Then, the infringement turns
upon the nationality of the retool
Mr. Grove—To some extent.

The Lori Chid is a point which I oertainly
will not decide here. With regard to what you say as to
the user of your patent on board a British ship, it may on
the other side be urged that your claim would have a ten-
dency to give you a monopoly all over the world. For
many purposes a British ship is considered to be part of
British sod, but my impression is that this doctrine is part
of international, and not of municipality.
Mr. M. Chambers said be should wound that the patent
in this case, which was granted for Great Britain, Ireland,
the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, did DOS intend
to Malta, Al•landria, or Australia, so as to make anything
done on board the ship them • violation of such patent.
He said it WAS the custom amongst inventors to take out
Mtents not only for the British islands, but also for her
ajesty's dominion abroad, and for different foreign
countries.

The Load Chief Baton—Your proposition is, that if amen
made and sold ow board • British ship at Melbourne one of
Brahma's bake which is p•te•ted here, he would not infringe
the patent!
Mr. Chamben—Yes„ bemuse it is made and sold out of
the limits to which the Wait extends.
Mr. Grove—l contend that the making of the lock would,
under those circumstances, be so infriogement, as it was
done on board • British ship. There may be • doubt
whether the selling would be an infringement.
The Lon! Chief Baron—The Australian *Amigo have
legislatures of their own, and may also have their own
patent laws.

Mr. Grove—That may be so, but Malta has no patent
laws of its own, and it forms Fold of the British territory.
In this case the infringement we complain of, though
commenced in this country, was really consummated
on the high seasbeteeen Malta and Alexandria. The learned
counsel added that the plaintiff instituted a suit is Chancery
in 18.57 against the defeadaat fur so injunction. and that the
whole matter was then referred to Mr. Thos. Webster. the
counsel for arbitration. That learned gentleman made as
award substantiating the plaintiff's claim, hut be raised cer-
tain points of law for the opinion of the Court of Common
lieu. These points were also decided by that court in
favour of the phoutiff.
The depositions of Mr. Laws, who was oe board the
Malacca, one of the vessels employed in laying the cable,
and who was now in India, as to the mode of paying out the
cable, were put is and reed.
Mr. Thomas Webster was then examined with respect
to what took place before him as arbitrator.
. .

The Lord Chief Bari; said be should hold with regard to
those acts complainsd of by the plaintiff so an infnegameut
of the patent which were committed oat of British territory,
that the fact of their being none on board as English ship
was of no consequence. The evidence would be takes sub-
ject to that ruling, upon which he would give the plaintiff
liberty to move the court above.
Mr. Bramwell, the civil engineer of Crest George-street,
was seat called and eziunioed at considerable length in sup.
port of the *hairs case.
The Wel bed ad oesoloded When the wart row