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 COMPANT.

The Attorney-General (speeially retained), Mr. Montagu
Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Hindmarsh (specially 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-
ration also claimed an injunction against further infringe-
ment, and prayed an account of the profits made since the
, action was commenced ; and that the defendants might be
ordered to pay the amount found due.
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-
phuretted 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 celled " 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 experiment., on the subject, and in 1849 he
took out a patent for the use of hydrated oxide of iron for
this purpase, 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 15 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. 1111.1s'
claim as the true and original inventor. It appeared that,a a
early as 1840, Mr. Croll had patented a process of purifying
gas tram 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 refe:red 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 trier owred and made known the use of the dydrated
oxitte in 184(3, and had spike(' 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 addieced 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.
CtoJ, Mr. Laming, and several others, whose evidence
went to show that the process r f the plaintiff was similar to
that which had been specified in earlier patents.
The examination of the wituesea„on both sides occupied
nearly four days, and this morning the Attorney-General
proceeded to reply upon the whole case in a spee,ch which
occupied mote than four hours.
Mr. Baron Bramwell then summed up the whole of the
evidence with great q it, and minuteness, and the jury,
I
after a short deliberati 74eturned a verdict for the plaintiff
upon all the material - ,ratsed—namely, that his inven-
tion was new, and that its as not identical with any of the
other processes that had been pri.viuusly patented.
A number of points of law .ere, however, res,:lved, upon
al of which lease was givsn to toe defendants to move to
have the vordiet set aide ; so that it is not at all unlikely
that there will be a go. d deal more litigation More the
question is finally til-prpe,l of.
(Before Mr. Jthtice Wille3 and a Common Jury.)