The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-14 00:00:00

LATEST INTELLIGENCE.

(REGTER'S TELEGRAMS.)
VISIT OF THE VICEROY OF EGYPT TO

PARIS.

KESSINA, Ran 14.

The Viceroy of Egypt, and MM.Putrey and Les-
sops arrived here yesterday at 11 a.m., and left
at 2 p m. for Toulon.

ITALY.

FLORENCE, Joxs 13.

In to-day's sitting of the Chamber of Deputies
the debate on the Public Works Budget was con-
cluded ; 800,000 lire were voted for the continua-
tion of the works on the Savona Railway.

AMERICA.
Off ATLANTIC TELEGRAPH.)
NEW YORK. JUNE 13.
The steamers Cimbria and 111ississippi arrived
here to-day, and the Peruvian at Boston.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
Metre Viee-Chaaaellor Sir W. Page Wood.)
BOVILL r. CRATE.

In this great patent casewhich was argued on every
cause day of the sittings of the court, from the 49th of
April to the 30th of May, his honour gave judgment
this morning.
The plaintiff, Mr. George Clinton Bovill, of 24, Duke-
street, Westminster, engineer, claims to be the inventor
of improvements in the manufacture of wheat and other
grain into meal and flour, for which a patent was
granted to him in the year 1549. Before 1.846 he had de-
voted much attention to this subject, and in that year he
patented an invention, which he had purchased for
10,000/. of Mr. liouglcaux, of Leghorn, for improving the
grinding of corn by introducing a blast of air through the
eye, or central aperture, of the millstone. The defect of
this process was that the dust blown out between the
stones by the process of ventilation, pervaded the
mill and became injurious to the health of the
workmen. Mr. Bovill accordingly devised some further
alterations, which are embodied in his patent of 1849.
According to the specification as finally altered, this in-
vention consists of :-1. An arrangement for ventilating
the grinding surfaces of the millstones, and the introduc-
tion of air through the top stone (when fixed), either by
blowing or exhaustion. 2. In exhausting the air from the
cases of the millstones, oombined with the application of
a, blast to the grinding surfaces. 3. In separating the stive
or dust of the Hour from the air, when ex•
haustion or bleat is employed, to facilitate grinding,
and preventing the dust and waste in the mill.
The first part of the invention consists in introducing air
pipes into the top millstone ; and this principle is claimed
by Mr. ltovill only when worked in combination with •
fixed upper stone. In carrying out the second part of the
invention, when working millstones with a blast of air, Mr.
Bovill introduces • pipe to the millstone cue from • fan
or other exhausting machine, so as to carry off all the
warm dusty air blown through between the donee to a
chamber, by which the dust n the mill is avoided, and
grinding improved. This part of the invention re-
lates only to sucking away the plenum of dusty air
forced through the stones, and not to employing •
sufficient exhausting power to induce • current of air
between the stones without • blast (this having been
before practised). The third part of the invention con-
sists in straining the stive, or lux which is surcharged with
fine dour, through suitable porous fabrics, which retain
the flour and allow the air to pass through. This is accom-
plished by exhausting the air from the millstone case by
means of • fan or other exhausting machinery, and blow-
ing the stive so exhausted into a chamber, having its aides
and top formed of one or more thicknesses of suitable porous
fabrics, so as to allow the air to pass out deprived of the dour.
The advantages alleged to be attained by this process over
the old system are, that the flour is produced of better
quality having greater life or strength, and in larger
quantities ; that it is delivered at an average of 20 deg.
less temperature ; that the necessity is avoided of sacking
the undressed grist, and keeping it for several day. until
it becomes cool enough for dressing ; that the millstones
grind four times u much without requiring redressing;
and that the mill is free from dust, and in • state of
cleanliness much more conducive to the health and com-
fort of the workmen. In 1852 the advantages of the in-
vention were considered by the government to be so great
that the Admiralty, after a prolonged opposition from
their own officials agreed to purchase Mr. Bovill's machi-
nery erected at Deptford, on trial, and to take from him a
license or royalty of rid. per quarter for wheat ground by
this process. In 1863 Mr. Bovill obtained an extension of
the patent for five years from the sth of June, 1854,
the application for the extension having been unsuccess-
fully opposed by a combination of millers. Meanwhile
and since he has been engaged in no less than
eighteen actions and suits against alleged in.
(ringers, and in one of these, originally tried in 1856
•rainst Messrs. Keyworth and Seeley, millers, of Lincoln.
the validity of the patent was established by the Court of
Queen's Bench. The present defendant, Mr. Augustus
Crate, is • miller at Dean Gate mills, Winchester ; and
this bill was filed in July, isez. stating that the plaintiff
had recently discovered that hie patent was being infringed
by the defendant in various ways—one, by using an ex-
haust for carrying off the dusty air, being the exhaust of
the plenum mentioned in the patent of 1859, or only
colourably differing therefrom. The other, by using
• stive room or porous chamber similar to that
described in the plaintiff's patent, or only eolourably dif-
fering therefrom. The bill prayed for an injunction and
account in the usual manner. The defendant's case was
that the patent was invalid, the invention not having
been new in 1849, nor the plaintiff's the first invention ;
also that the specification wee imperfect because it did
not sufficiently describe bow the exhaust of the plenum
was effected, nor what was the speed of the machinery
used for effecting the exhaust. As to the alleged infringe-
ment the defendant's process is as follows :—The upper
millstone is the running stone, and the lower
one is fixed. The eye of the stones is left open, and at
first a piece of Licking was tacked on to the hoop of the
mill, which dropped on the running stone and thereby the
stive and dusty air were drawn into a wooden chamber at
the top the mill by • fan. Afterward. for this sacking a
wooden frame or chamber was substituted. No artificial
blast is used in the mill. As to the stive-room, the de-
fendant said that never uses • room in any way similar to
that described by the plaintiffs, and that never, except for
the month during which he used: the sacking above men-
tioned, has he used any porous substance for filtering the
air through. The defendant admitted that he was one of
an association of millers residing at Manchester and the
neighbourhood, who had agreed to defray his costa of de-
fending this suit.
. . .

The;nain argument for the defence as to infringement
was, that what the plaintiff claimed was a combination of
an exhaust of the plenum, together with the artificial
blast ; and that as the defendant used no artificial blast,
there could be no infringement on his part. To this the
plaintiff replied that hie patent was for a combination of
the exhaust of the plenum, together with the blast which
must be always present, whether produced artificially by
a machine, or simply generated by the rotary motion of
the millstone.
A vast amount of evidence was adduced in order to
establish cases of user of the invention prior to 1849, but
on all these, except the cases of two mills at Isle-
worth and Houghton, his honour called for no reply.
His honour also thought that the French patents of MM.
Danny, Valcod, Cartier, and Cabanas, which were relied
upon, had no reference to the case, no sufficient proof
having been adduced that they had ever been put to any
profitable use. Amongst other facts relied upon by the
plaintiff was this, that the proprietors of two of tho
largest mills where Mr. Moral's invention was said to have
been anticipated, had lately taken a licence from him,
and in one instance had paid as large an amount as 3,300/.
for the licence.

Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Driece, Q.C., Mr. Aston, Mr. J.
C. Mathew, and Mr. Frederic Harrison appeared for the
plaintiff.
Sir R. Palmer, Q.C., Mr. Edward James, Q.C., Mr.
Little, Q.C., Mr. Watkin Williams, and Mr. W. N. Law-
son were for the defendant.

The Vies-Chancellor, after alluding to the long contro-
versy to which the patent had given rise, said he attributed
the greatest possible Importance to the decision in "Ifovill
r. Keyworth," especially as to one part of the patent.
What had now to be considered was the difficulties that
had arisen in carrying out Mr. Bovill's original desi;,-n ;
and the question was whether or not in the original process
any inconvenience was produced by the blast created by
the unassisted natural motion of the stones in blowing
out dust, or " stive," as it had been called. Mr.
Bovill's statement was that a millstone was a natural
blowing machine, and that in every mill there must be a
blowing out of dust arising from the motion of the stones,
and that the temperature of the air in the millstone case
was heightened from the same cause. These statements
had been disputed, but several of the defendant's witnesses
had deposed to the use for many years past of canvas
screens to cover the millstone-box, and to carry off the
Aire or dust, and had admitted that there was a pressure
of air in the interior of the screens, causing them to belly
ont,together with manifestations of heat and moisture. This
had moreover been admitted by the defendant himself. As
to the specification, his Honour was of opinion that the
first part of the claim must be considered a separate inven-
tion, whilst the second and third might be treated as a
combination. The decision of the case rested upon this
second part of the invention, and it must be obaerved that
the plaintiff entered into no description until he came to
the passage which described the sucking away of the ple-
num of dusty air. Much of th e contention had turned upon the
words " in working millstones with a blast of air," and
the defendant had contended that " blast " necessarily
meant an artificial blast. Now, when the three modes are
considered, the working with the natural now of sir, the

working with a pipe, and the working with a fan—the nee
of the word " blast " must be held to distinguish an arti.
field from a natural process. It had been said that Mr.
Bovill's statement was a disclaimer, and not a claim, but
that was not the decision in " Bovill v. Keywortb."
If a " plenum," that is to say, a pressure of air,
be produced within the millstone case, and, by
means of the process described, that plenum, or
pressure, be exactly removed by sucking it away,
his Honour must consider that this removal of a
" plenum," when it accompanied the use of an artificial,
instead of a natural, blast, amounted to a positive claim ;
and that all the disclaimer came to was this—that Mr.
Bovill claimed this invention of removing the " plenum "
only with reference to a blast of air forced through the
stones. Now, " Bovilly. Keyworth" was a decision in favour
of the patent, and thus far showed that no successful case
was there raised in argument against the novelty of any
part of the patent. But it also decided this—that there was
something described which was callable of being patented ;
and that that something was sufficiently described in the
specification. So far, therefore, the present suit was
governed by authority ; and His Honour must observe that
after the plaintiff's invention in 1848 the flood of patents
both foreign and English had suddenly ceased, and the right
thing seemed to have been bit upon. The objection that Me,
Bovill had simply claimed the lame thing as he claimed
some years ago his Honour thought was unfounded;
and he had not heard Mr. Grove in reply
on another objection—namely, that the plaintiff
had not been sufficiently explicit in describing
the "suitable" porous fabrics by which he arrested the
" stirs." It was no part of Mr. Bovill's patent to describe
the best mode of boll . flour. With regard to the great
question in the cause—that of the novelty of the patent— I
the defendant had not disputed the novelty, if the plaintiff
confined himself to a combination of blast and exhaust,
and did not claim exhaust alone as a new and material ,
part of his invention. Now as to the use of the exhaust,
his Honour had heard evidence as to the practice in no lees
than 13 different pleads, as to two alone of which—Houghton
and Isleworth, had he thought it necessary to hear a reply.
His Honour discussed these two cases, and came to the
conclusion that an inspection of the models, together with
a minute examination of the evidence, rebutted the first '
impression, which was, that Mr. Bovill's invention had
been anticipated in these two mills. The circumstance
that in only two instances had any doubt (in his Honour's
opinion) been successfully raised, coupled with the acknow- '
lodged usefulness of the plaintiff's process, was strongly in 1
favour of the novelty. Had this discovery been known
and open to the whole world, it was incredible that it 1
should not have been used by millers generally, and more 1
particularly by those, who, like some of the witnesses in
this case, were constantly on the look-out for improve-
meats. In commenting upon this part of the ease his
Honour observed that he considered the testimony of
some of the witnesses with reference to mills at Drypool,
to be utterly unworthy of credit. Having gone through
I the evidence with respect to those eleven other
mills, his Honour observed that to try again
all that set of facts when there was nothing
material in dispute would in his opinion be an idle proem.
Then came the question of the foreign patents. One
observation applied to them all—namely, that it was not
sufficient to show that the actual invention was included
in a former specification, unless it was described in that
specification in such a way as that it could be worked. It
was characteristic of great discoveries both in science and
art, that a great many minds being simultaneously directed
to the same subject, some one mind more ingenious
than the rest hit upon the happy invention.
But no invention of • kind that could be immediately
carried out in practice was to be found in the French pa-
tents. That disposed of the whole question of novelty.
Then as to the pert of the case that turned upon the in-
fringement,
his Honour could come to no other conclusion
than the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's patent ; I
and the result will be an injunction must follow as prayed,
with a decree for inquiry as to damages, for an account,
and that the defendant do pay the oasts of the suit, act
cording to the 43rd section of the Patent Law Amendmen-
Act, 1852. 1

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sitting, in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice and
Justices Mellor and Shee.)
OLIVER V. O'NZIL (CLERK).
Mr. Harrington moved on behalf of Samuel Oliver for
a rule calling upon two of the justices of Bedford-
shire to show cause why they should not hear
and decide a charge of assault preferred by Oliver against
the Reverend Mr. O'Neil, incumbent of Luton.
Ile moved on affidavits, made by Oliver and
his attorney, which stated that it had been the
practice from all time in the parish of Luton for the
churchwardens to collect the alms of the parishioners dar-
ing Divine service and present them at the communion
table, and after the service of going into the vestry and
twisting the minister in counting the money, and ascer-
taining if it was correct. On the Sunday in question
Mr. Oliver, who was the churchwarden, performed
his duty in the ordinary way, and after the ser-
vice went into the vestry to assist in counting the
money, but he no sooner got in than he was several times
seized by the Rev. Mr. O'Neil, who attempted to forcibly
eject him, at the same time calling him " a vagabond,"
" a low-bred scoundrel," " a low fellow not worth talking
to." The justices heard the evidence, when for the first
time the defendant set up a claim to the exclusive right
and possession of the vestry, and contended that the jus-
tires could not hear the case. No doubt the vicar, in the
case of a stranger or a servant of the church, might on his
refusing to leave the vestry turn him out, but there was
no pretence for saying that an incumbent had exclusive
possession of the church as against the churchwarden,
who had the right to be present in the vestry. The jus-
tices had refused to decide upon the merits of the case so
as to raise the point of law for this court.
Rule granted.

BAIL COURT.

Sitting. in Banco.—(Before Justicesilickburn and Lush.)

IN 1/E CUTTS.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., said this was • rule calling upon
Mr. Cutts, solicitor and town clerk of Chesterfield, to
answer the matter of an affidavit. The learned counsel
said he had not had time to read the affidavits which Mr.
Cutts had filed in answer, and as Le (Mr. Coleridge) could
not be here to-morrow, he asked that the cane might not
be taken before Monday.
Mr. D. Seymour, Q.C., said Mr. Cutts was most anxious
to have the matter investigated, and his character cleared
from the imputation that had been east upon him.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said it was usual and very desir-
able that • case of this kind should be heard and deter-
mined if possible the same term. It was equally fair
and reasonable that the opposite party should have an
opportunity of reading and considering the affidavit.
Under the circumstances the court would accede to Mr.
Coleridge's application, and not take the case before
Monday.