The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-06-29 00:00:00

This, he said, was an
t of a patent granted on the 26th of

limpro'vements in boxes for
fire. The defendant set up
old 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
fully, and if the jury thoug
read it over.

He had taken the evidence very
t it would assist them he would

The Jury intimated that they did not think it necessary.
Lord CAMPBELL then said, he should shortly direct their
attention to the several questians 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 he thought
this issue was hardly disputed, they must consider 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 issue was with regard to the novelty of the inven-
tion. The third and fourth were so much alike that they might
be taken as part of the same question.
It lay on the plaintiff to show that this was a new invention,
and if he gave prima facie evidence that it was so, the defen-
dant would have to show that it was not. Now there was cer-
tainly strong evidence on the part of the plaintiff to show that
it was new. It was for them to say whether it was properly an
invention for the protection of papers against fire. The papers
were locked in an iron box, having cases enclosed, leaving
chambers between t' e two cases, and the object was to have
some substance that would give out a moisture upon the appli-
cation of the heat, and the steam thus produced was to be in-
closed in the box and moisten the papers so that they might be
preserved from the effects of fire. There had been several wit-
nesses of respectability on both sides, although several of those
called for the defendant had only recently turned their atten-
tion to this subject. Several witnesses for the plaintiff said
that, although there had been an addition to the old safe which
consisted merely of a single iron box, a mode having been in-
troduced of having an outer box, the great object was to in-
troduce some non-conducting substance, so that the operation
of heat might be retarded as much as possible; but that there
was nothing until Mr. Milner's patent to moisten the papers
by the operation of steam.
On the part of the defendant, he chiefly relied on Marr's and
Chubb's patents, and it would be for them to say whether those
patents were not confined to introducing non-conductors.
The object of both was to save papers from destruction, but the
mode and operation was the question in dispute. He had been
puzzled to know the difference between the two patents of Marr
and Chubb, and he afterwards found from one of the witnesses
that there was no distinction between them. They both had
non-conductors in the inner case. but neither seemed to have
had the slightest contemplation of any liquid, as their object
was rather to have substances as dry as possible, but had no
notion of a liquid which was to be condensed into steam to
moisten the papers in the inner case. They had heard the
evidence, and it would be for them to say whether they were
satisfied that the invention which Mr. Milner set out in his
/specification was known before the date of hispatent. If they
thought it was, they would find that issue for the defendant ;
and if they thought it was not, they would find it for the plaintiff.
The third and fourth issues were substantially the same, being
that Me. Milner was not the inventor, and the invention was
not new. If Mr. Milner was the inventor, the invention was
new; and if he was not the inventor, it was not new. Then
came the issue of whether it was useful, and he must say lie
had been astonished to find such strong evidence of its useful-
ness. lip to this hour he had no idea that there were any
human means of so effectually preserving papers from the
action of fire. It appeared that, by means of the condensation
of steam, the papers enclosed in the inner box were rendered
moist. It was a comfort for one to know that there was an in
vention, by which valuable documents
notwithstanding the terrible calamity might be rendered secure
of
fire
fit breakingto sae3
house. Although the defendant thoughtliialtyd
not useful, he was really at a loss to say
was to raise any doubt as to its utilitv•bweit'aithr',!(-IT

Now came t
ri in 'ilia rho,

brectio„ n he should
ust be guided by wl•

in point c
He thou

idailfts—il'Ou'i.ci'

w•as not

but they w

defendant ha
that. respect:
seminaries o

bent, enrit:
Nlilner's I

xes, he c

College,

11 mind