The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-20 00:00:00

WEBSTER V. NEWTOX:

Mr. POLLOCI appearedapppenred to shew cause why a new trial should
not be had in this eeoc. It was tried before the Lord Chief Just ice
at Guildhall, and a verdict given for the plaintiff. There were
three grounds on which he understood his Learned friend (Mr.
Brougham) intended to support the rule which he had obtained :
first, that the alleged improvement for which the patent was ob-
tained was too inconsiderable to support the right of patent ; se-
condly, that the Jury found against the weight of evidence, which
11 went to establish that the invention was not a new and useful one,
but had previously been discovered ; and the third ground of ob.
jeetion was a defect in the specification of the patent. On the third
and last ground lie (Mr. Pollock) did not intend to occupy the
attention of their Lordship, as no objection was taken to the
specification at the trial, and he submitted it was now too
late to start that objection. The patent was taken out for an
improvement which the plaintiff introduced in Forsyth's per.
cusston gun. Forsyth had a patent for fourteen years, and on
the expiration of that term of yews, the plaintiff took out the
present patent. The Learned Counsel here submitted to the Court
a skeleton pistol, for the purpose of explaining the improvement
which was introduced into the manufacture of the percussion gun
by the plaintiff's invention. It consistzd principally in superset!.
ing the necessity of &screw in the lock el a gun, and which in frost
or rain rendered this description of gun extremely inconvenient to
use in the field, and by introducing in its stead a spring and a bolt,
which rendered the gun fir fur use without having recourse to the
inconvenient process of screwing and unscrering. As to the first
ground of objection, he (Mr. P.) submitted that the invention was an
important one, and deserving of a patent. It might be less im-
portant than ether inventions, but it was an ingenious one—it was
the application of an old principle, to be sure, but then it was its
application to a subject matter to which it never had been applied
before. The same objection would lie against the most important
inventions of modern times. The hydrostatic paradox had long
been understood, but until the ingenious and important invention
of Mr. Branish, by the applicatimi of that paradox to the hydrau-
lic press, the world were without the practical benefits which the
theorem of that paradox was capable of yielding. The same might
be predicted of every invention. The egg which Colun.bus made
to stand on end was a simple illusttetion of his argument. Ile did
not mean to deny that the principle upon which this invention de.
pended was before kr.own, but it had never been applied to the
particular purpose to which the plaintiff' appl:ed it ; and he there.
fore was entitled to the merit of the ingenuity of the invention. As
to the weight of evidence being favourable to the objection that the 1
invention had before been made, that was a question of fact which
belonged to the province of the Jury to decide, and they had de.
tided dist it was an invention both useful and new, which were
the requisite conditions to be complied with under the statute of
James 1. As the specification hail net been objected to at the trial,
he would repeat his hope that their Lordship would not now be
disposed to disturb the verdict of the Jury on that ground.
Mr. PARK and Mr. Monett ft-Mowed on the same side. The
latter gentleman entered at considerable length into a statement of
the elementary principles of mechanics as applicable to the inven-
tion before the Court. He submitted that it was new, rt.-nl if new,
it was unnecessary to prove that it was useful; it would be
aufli-
cient to show that it was likely to be useful. All that could row he
expected, in the present advanced state of science, was the applica-
tion of old principles to new subjects. .

Mr. llnoucti.em, who appaired to support the rule, expressed a
disinclination to follow his Learned Friend who last addressed the
Court, in a discussion of the elementary principles of mechanics.
He must, however, dirbent from his doctrine, as to the conditions
that were requisite to give a right of patent. Ilia Learned Friend
had said that it was sufficient if the invention were new, and that it
was net necessary to prove it to be usefuL Ile hail for the first
time heard such a doctrine. His Learned Friend deserved
to have a patent for it ; it answered his own definition, for it was
perfectly new, though not at all useful (much laughter). Ile (3lr.
Brougham) could not see that this was a new invention, or that
there was any nisch:mical principle newly applied in the manufac-
ture of this gun. The simple explanation of the alleged improve_
meet was this : that every wheel moving round an axis is prevented
firm falling off, by a linchpin, or by a bolt grooved into the body,
to which the wheel is attached ; that bolt may be within or with•
out it. ll'hat he said of a wheel was of course applicable to
every moving substance revolving round an axis. New this could
not he called the application of a new principle. but an experi-
ment, which experience invariably conhrmed. It had been tried
and applied in a thousand instances before, and applied to a thou.
sand purposes. It might es well be said that if pa person were to
apply the springs of a marriage to a broad four-whcel waggon, lie
would have a right to claim a patent for the invention, because
they had only been applied to carriages heretofore, and no other
person had applied them to four-wheeled heavy waggons. (A laugh.)
The ingenious and able invention of Mr. Bramah was not at all
apposite to the present argument. It is true the principle of the
hydrostatic paradox was before understood, but it was only under-
stood theoretically, speculatively, anti, if he might use the expres-
sion, generically. But to Mr. Itrainah belonged the merit of re-
ducing that theorem to practical utility. That a small column of
water would resist the pressure of a great weight was before known,
it was not before known how that knowledge could be made avail-
able to so important and so useful a purpose as he applied it to in
the invention of the hydraulic press. The eases were widely
different. The hydraulic press was the application of a theo-
retic principle to a practical purpose ; but the alleged inven-
tion of the plaintiff was merely making an experiment on
the lock of a gun, which had frapiently been made on other
locks, and which, in a variety ut mechanical implements,
had been before made apparent. The Learned Gentleman pro-
ceeded to point out various instances in which this experiment had
been made, and said, that if this were allowed to he an invention,
any person might claim a patent for the :pplication of the lever,
axle, pulley, screw, or any other mechanical power, to a subject to
which it may not have happened to have been before applied. But
admitting, which he was not disposed to do, that the invention was
new and useful, yet the specification must be fatal, for it mentioned
not only the present contrivance, but also " various modes and
modifications," which were not act forth in the specification. It
would seem as if this phrase was meant to convey a right of patent
to every other contrivance where the same mechanical experiment
(for he would not call it principle) may be called into operation.
If, therefore, the specification were bad, he submitted that their
Lordships would not refuse the rule. It had been ruled by the
C.ntrt before, that it was fatal to a patent, when ten different modes
of mixing colon's were act forth, but one of them failed to fulfil the
terms of the specification. This was, be submitted, a parallel case,
and on the same ground the present specification was bad. The
Learned Gentleman proceeded, with his wonted ability, to cite se-
veral cases to ptiiut out the LAW in the specification, and to slew,
that the invention was neither useful nor new, and that therefore
the defendant, in whose shop the pla,fatiff was formerly a workman,
was entitled to the advantage, at least, of having the case undergo
the revision or another Jury. Besides. his Lordship had lett it to
the Jury to decide, whether the invention was not too inconsider-
able to entitle it to the right of patent. This, he submitted, was a
question of law : the question of fact for the Jury was, whether the
invention had or had not been before discareretl. The con-
sideration, however, of what degree or quantity of improvement in
the invention gave the patentee a right to the patent, was a conj.
derAtion of law which should be reserved fur the Court. The
Learned Counsel, in conclusion, contended, that his client was en-
titled to a new trial, as no proof was tendered at the trial of his har-
ing sold any guns according to the newly-alleged invention, as wan
stated in the declaration. On this ground, in addition to the
ethers which he sauced, tho reedit:* could not be sustained.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE (the boor for the rising of the
Court having arrival) postponed the further entertainment of argu-
ment in this ease.