The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-05-25 00:00:00

and were an infringe-
ht by the

An action had been broug

lant for the infringement, and tried
e last, before Lord Chief Justice Campbell and a special
, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, the defend
lad tendering a Bill of Exceptions to the dire,
ed judge on the construction of 3lr. Milner's s
the el
Ia

Harrison had

s complained of, and the
plaintiff proved the recent sale by defen-
ch scientific witnesses stated was snbstan.

red on the trial, and found to be an
by Doctor Muspratt whose
The affidavit of Mr. John
1 this Safe had been made by him
-ed that it was made according to

alyiis accompanied his affidavit

s, and he alle

r specificatio

His-Hoxouu stated the principle on which the Court inter-
fered in cases of this kind, and observed that Tann's specifi-
cation appeared to contemplate only a dry non-conductor to
stop the heat, whereas Milner's created a further obstruction
to the fire, by producing at the period when the fire began to
act on the box an effusion of steam, which pervaded the non-
conducting material with moisture, and thereby protected the
safe and its contents. His Honour adverted to the ong enjoy-

ment of the Patent which was granted n, _
trial at law, and the clear opininni n the
expressed by the Lord Chief Justice, and in which his Honour
concurred, stating that he considered Milner's was a Patent
• which the liquid. &c., might be mi-
and he concluded
rms of the motion.

1840, the result of the

claiming eve

by granting t

nction in to

PRESERVATION OF BOOKS. DEEDS, &c,

FROM FIRE

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH, JUNE 23RD, 1851, BEFORE

LORD CAMPBELL AND A SPECIAL JURY.
MILNER v. HARRISON.

(7he latter selling Tann's Sores and Boxes, and advertising
himself as so:e proprietor of l'ann's Patent Safes, Chests, .5-c.)
The above trial was instituted for the purpose of vindicating
the exclusive right, on the part of the Plaintiff, of applying
liquids, or materials evolving moisture on the application of
heat, together with ether absorbent materials, within the
chambers of Boxes, Safes, or Depositories, calculated to per-
vade the chambers and contents of the safes with moisture
and steam, when heated by fire, thereby preserving the papers
from ignition. Mr. Crowder, Q.C., Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C.,
and Mr. Webster, appeared for the Plaintiff; and Sir F. The-
alger, Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. Hindmarsh, for the Defen-
dant. After the case had been stated by Mr. Crowder evidence
was given by Mr. Grantham, of Liverpool, Civil Engineer and
Surveyor of Steamers to the Board of Trade; Mr. Samuel
Woods. jun.. of London, formerly of Liverpool ; Mr. J. W.
Filcher, of Liverpool; Mr. Alderman Bennett, Ironfounder, if
Liverpool; Dr. Sheridan Muspratt, Professor of Chymistry,
Liverpool; Mr. John Smith, President of the Guardian
Society. Liverpool ; Mr. B. Woodcroft, Professor of Machinery
at the University College, London ; and by Mr. John Owens,
one of the foremen of 141ilner's Works for the last twenty years,
on the utility, originality, &c., of Milner's Safes—of which
upwards of 25,000 are now in use—and also of the infringe-
ment of Milner's Patent by the Defendant, who was proved to
have used the very materials in the Safes and Boxes he had
tested and sold, which he had seen used by the Plaintiff's firm,
when in their service as Shopman, from 1846 to 1849. This
was followed by Sir F. Thesiger's reply for the Defendant, who
called several witnesses, but whose testimony, on cross-exami-
nation, completely established the Plaintiff's case. Mr.
Crowder finally addressed the Jury on the facts, and

Lord CAMPBELL then summed up. This, Le said, was an
action for the infringement of a patent granted on the 26th of
August, 1840, for certain alleged improvements in boxes for
the protection of papers from fire. The defer.dant set up
several defences, which he would not take exactly in their
proper order. Ist. He said that there was no proper specifica-
tion of this patent. 2dly. That Milner, the patentee, was not
the inventor ; also, that it was not a new invention, that it was
not a useful invention ; and that, at all events, the defendant
had not infringed the patent. He had taken the evidence very
fully, and if the jury thought it would assist them he would
read it over.

The Jury intimated that they did not think it necessary

Lord CAMPBELL then said, he should shortly direct their
attention to the several questions they were to determine, for
they were all for their determination. With regard to the in-
fringement, he would repeat the direction he had before given
them. Here was the specification, and although lie thought
this issue was hardly disputed, they must consiuer whether an
ordinary workman, of ordinary skill, looking at it, could make
one of the boxes it described. The witnesses had said that an
ordinary workman, in their judgment, would be able to do so,
The next ;--
tion. ward to the *."-^1-
be take

issue was with -
third and fourth were so
s part of the same auegtit

u. 13 •13 CI,
prima faciee;fdence that it was
to show that it was not. Now
--A on the part of the nlnintii

I t was for t

tether it