The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-16 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—GUILDFORD, AUG. 14.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell and a Special Jury.)
HILLS V. THE LONDON GAS LIGHT COMPANY.

The Attorney-General (specially retained), Mr. Montagu
Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Hindmarsh (specialty retained), Mr.
C. Pollock, and Mr. Watkin Williams, were for the plaintiff.
Mr. Bovill, Q C., Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. Webster (specially
retained), and the Hon. G. Denman, were counsel for the
defendants.

This cause began on Tuesday morning, and was not
brought to a conclusion until late this afternoon. It was an
action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants to
receive damages for the infringement of a patent taken out
by him for a mode of purifying coal gas from sulphuretted
hydrogen by means of hydrated oxide of iron. The decla-
rationmos
acetinotn, awndaspreaoymemd
eanneaecdc;ouanntdotfhatht et
hper
also claimed an injunction against further infringe-
dfieftendmaandt
es
msiniacieathbee
ordered to pay the amount found dne.
There were a great number of pleas, but the substantial
defence was, that the plaintiff was not the true inventor,
and that the invention was not new. It appears that after
the gas is separated from the coal by means of heat, It con-
tains two impurities, which it is necessary to remove
before it can be used—namely, ammonia and sul-
pharetted hydrogen. The ammonia is removed by passing
the gas through water, and the old method of removing
the sulphuretted hydrogen was by means of lime.
The disadvantage of this was that there was a large residuum
technically called " blue billy," which was in its nature
very offensive and dangerous to health and life, which had
to be disposed of, and in order to do without it chemists
turned their attention to the discovery of other substances
that would effect the same result without the same injurious
consequences. In the years 1847 and 1848 Mr. Hills, the
plaintiff; who is an operative chemist at Deptford, per-
formed some experiments on the subject, and in 1849 he
took out a patent for the use of hydrated oxide of iron for
this purpose, which he made use of by mixing with saw-
dust, so that the gas passed through it, the effect thus
produced being that the iron retained the sulphuretted
hydrogen, and the gas passed on quite pure. This pa-
tent also included a mode of removing the hydrated oxide
of iron after it was thus charged with the sulphuretted
hydrogen, so that the same material might be used over
and over again for l 5 or :20 times, some process of revival
being absolutely necessary in order to make the use of the
oxide of iron of any practical value, in consequence of the
expensive nature of the material. Mr. Hills' process of
reviving the oxide appeared to be a very simple one, being
merely exposure to the air, and if possible, by the with-
drawal of the pressure of the atmosphere from its surface.
This plan, it appears, has been found perfectly successful,
but the originality of the invention was disputed, and this
action was in fact brought in order to establish Mr. Hills'
claim as the true and original inventor. It appeared that,a s
early as 1840, Mr. Croll had patented a process of purifying
gas from sulphuretted hydrogen, and had in his specification.
mentioned, amongst other things, the oxides of iron:, and it
was contended that this was a disclosure of that which the
present plaintiff sought to patent. In answer to this
it was
said that there were several forms of the oxides of iron, some
of which were hydrated, and others anhydrous ;. and that
Mr. Hills had specified and patented the hydrated form only,
and that, as the process indicated by Mr. Croll for the revival
of his oxides only referred to anhydrous oxides, his specifi-
cation could not be taken to have divulged, as a fact, the use
of the hydrated oxides. It was also said that Mr. Laming
had discovered and made known the use of the dydrated
oxide in 1846, and had spoken of it under the name of car-
bonate of iron, and upon this part of the case there was a
great deal of learned discussion and evidence, which would
be almost unintelligible to non-scientific persons.
A mass of scientific evidence was adduced on both sides.
On the part of the plaintiff Professor Taylor, Mr. Dugald
Campbell, Dr. Miller, and a number of other eminent
chemists and scientific men, were examined to prove the
originality and value of the invention; and on behalf of the
defendant there were Dr. Herapatb, Dr. Redwood, Mr.
Croll, Mr. Laming, and several others, whose evidence
went to show that the process of the plaintiff was similar to
that which had been specified in earlier patents.
The examination of the witnesses on both sides occupied
nearly four days, and this morning the Attorney-General
proceeded to reply upon the whole case in a speech which
occupied more than four hours.
Mr. Baron Bramwell then summed up the whole of the
evidence with great care and minuteness, and the jury,
after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff
upon all the material points raised—namely, that his inven-
tion was new, and that it was not identical with any of the
other processes that had been previously patented.
A number of points of low were, however, reserved, upon
all of which leave was given to the defendants to move to
have the verdict set aside ; so that it is not at all unlikely
that there will be a good deal more litigation before the
question is finally disposed of.
(Before Mr. Justice Wines and a Common Jury.)
CESARINI V. RONGANI.

This was an action to recover a balance of £4O 3s. 4d.,
under an agreement made by the defendant to pay the
plaintiff a certain sum of money for singing at the Royal
Theatre at Turin, of which theatre lie was the principal
director.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Joyce appeared for the plain-
tiff •' Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins were for
the defendant.
Sergeant Shee, in opening the case to the jury, said that
the plaintiff, Adelaide Cesarini, was the daughter of an
gentleman who had settled for some time in London,
and kept a private boarding-house in Golden-square, and
she was possessed of considerable talent as a singer and
teacher of mtode. The defendant, Dominico 'toward,
was also an Italian and a resident at Turin, but in the year
1856 he was engaged at the Italian Opera as ballet master,
and he became acquainted with the !wirer of the plaintiff
and the plaintiff herself, and was on friendly terms and fre-
quently visited the family. The plaintiff at this time desired
to appear upon the stage as a singer, and she mentioned the
subject to the defendant, who advised her not to make her
debtit in London, but to go to Italy, and when she
had acquired some reputation as a singer in that coun-
try to return to England, and make her appearance
at an English theatre. The defendant at the same
time suggested that she should go and sing at one
of the theatres of Turin. The defendant left Eng-
land about this time, and went to Turin, and some cor-
respondence passed between him and the father of the
young lady upon the subject of her having an engagement
to sing at one of the Turin theatres, and in November, 1856,
the defendant offered to give the plaintiff 2,000 fr. if she
would come to Turin and sing during the season, from lie-
crusher to March. The engagement was accepted, and the
defendant then wrote to the plaintiff and requested that she
would study the part of Violetta in an opera of his own
composing, called "II Bravo." She did so, but she dis-
covered that her voice was not suited to the part, and her
fattier wrote to the defendant and informed him of the fact.
The defendant still expressed his desire to carry out the
engagement, and the plaintiff accordingly proceeded to
Turin, accompanied by her mother and her sister, and they
arrived there in the br ginning of December. The defendant
at this time had the management of two theatres in Turin,
one called the Reggio or Royal, and the other the National
Theatre ; and it was understood that the young lady was to
be introduced as first singer at one of these establishments.
The defendant, it appeared, after the plaintiff had arrived at
Turin, again requested tier to study the part of Yioletta.
Site consented, and went to a rehearsal, but found it
was clear that her voice did not suit the part, and the de-
fendant at len'th admitted himself that this was the
crse, when he engaged the services of another lady to per-
form it ; but although the defendant was so very
anxious to have his opera of " It Bravo" brought before
the public, it appeared that it was not successful, and
was withdrawn, and the plaintiff then played the part of
Fenena in another opera called " Nabuco." She conti-
tinned to play in this character during the whole season ;
and he was instructed that the defendant denied her the
indulgence of being absent on the day her mother, who had
been taken ill, and died in Italy, was buried. During the
period of her performing, all the money she received was
8:20fr., about £33, and the present action was brought to
recover the balance due to the plaintiff under the agree-
ment in question. The learned counsel concluded by
stating that he did not anticipate a very fair defence
would be set up, and that he believed that an attempt
would possibly be made to show that the young lady'e
performance was not satisfactory to the public, and that she
was not competent to undertake the position of prima
donna; but if this were done he should show that the de-
fendant himself in one of his letters had spoken in a very
favourable manner of her performance of the character of
_Pendia, and stated that she bad given great satisfaction to
the public; and he should also be able to show that the
defendant engaged her to sing at the St. James's Theatre
at a salary of £4 per week, after she had returned from the
engagement in Italy.
Madlle. Adelaide Cesarini, the plaintiff, was then exa-
mined. She stated that she first became acquainted with
the defendant in the latter part of 1856. He was at that
time ballet-master at the Italian Opera. He was aware
that she had a desire to go upon the stage, and he advised
shrears
ot on stthued yd
defendant
oLd'Ea
ol its i
leftd ' ALt oortei
0. 'o' Atfor the
Italeyn,daoofd the ocpoenr a.
tinned to study. Soon after this she received a letter from
the defendant requestinß her to study the part
os of Violetta,
in an opera called
" II Bravo," and she did so.
In.
four mouths'
Novem-
ber she received the offer a 2,oooft.for
season at Turin, and she went there, accompanied by
her mother and sister, and
arrived at Turin on the
9th of December, when the defendant provided her with
apartments in the National Theatre. The defendant
wished her to play the part of Violetta, and she told
him she could not do so, and lie knew it; but he
insisted and she went to rehearsal, and the defendant shortly
afterwards told her that he had engaged another actress to
perform the part, as he found it would not suit her voice.
She made her first appearance in January, 1857, in the part
of Fenena in the opera of " Nabuco." Her mother was taken
ill and died, and the defendant insisted on her performing on
the day she was busied, although she asked him for the in-
dulgence of being absent on that evening. She received alto-
gether from the defendant about £34, and when the theatre
closed, she asked him for the remainder of the money, but he
said lie could not give it her then, as he had so many expenses.
She left Turin on the Ist of April, and came to England,
subsequently, with her sister; and the defendant, who had
pbger,icieo,nimtteleyd otvv‘lnii,seenireteemidi
oaaanndtatgheer
same
ethe
salaryS t . J. ames's Theatre, engaged
her to sing there at a salary of £4 a-week. All the other '
Cross-examined by Mr. James—Her father and the de-
fendantv e
theirr
house.intimate
cott and the
tt hpel a latter tt thee p
r fraer-t
of Violetta at all. It did net suit her voice. It was too
high. While she was at Turin she signed some paper at
the request of the defendant, but she did not know the
nature of it. It very likely was the same now produced.
Mr. James here a*,l, a written paper in Italian, which