The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-06-15 00:00:00

LORD CAMPBELL
MILNER t

AND A SPECIAL JURY
HARRISON.

(The latter selling Tonn's Safes and Boxes, and advertising
himself asso:e proprietor of Tann's Patent Safes, Chests, &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-
siger, Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. Hintimarsh, 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, of
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 Milner'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 bad
etti et, A 1•.<1 for., 11 A.l-rt. 'Ur -n 1.
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, he 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
aeveral defences, which he would not take exactly in their
proper order. Ist. He said that there was no proper specifica-
tionof this patent. 2dly. That Milner, the patentee, was not
theinventor ; also, that it was not a new invention, that it was
not a useful invention; and that, at all events, the defendant
bad 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 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 ti 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 bad 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, be 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 ;vas 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 forthe
. _

The third and fourth issues were substantially the same, being"
that Mr. 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 he
had been astonished to find such strong evidence of its useful-
ness. Up 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 might be rendered secure,
notwithstanding the terrible calamity of fire breaking out in a
house. Although the defendant had thought fit to tay it was
not useful, he was really at a loss to say what evidence there
was to raise any doubt as to its utility ; but the question was
for them alone. Now came the direction he should give them
in point of law, and in this they must be guided by what he said.
He thought there might be an infringement, although the de-
fendant did not use vessels, pipes, or tubes for containing the
liquid. All the rest lie left to them ; but he only said that it
was not indispensably necessary that the defendant should use
pipes, tubes, or artificial vessels, but they were to consider
whether the evidence was sufficient to convince them that the
defendant had infringed the patent. They would bear in mind
that respectable proessors from King's College, and other
seminaries of learning, had been called for the defendant, and
they would consider whether they disproved the infringement.
Tann's patent could only be evidence on the ground of

went, kir it was not taken out until nearly for
sold T
r years
nantnte,sr
Milner's; but if, as it would appear that rirr
boxes, he could not say that they were not to look to Tann's
specification, if they came to theconclusion that the boxes made
by Tann were the same as those Milner described in his specifi-
cation. They were to look on all the evidence on either side
bearing on these issues ; and if they thought that, although the
boxes that the defendant sold did not contain any pipes, tubes,
or artificial vessels for containing the liquid, they contained
alum and other substances from which moisture was to be ex-
tracted by heat; if they thought they were substantially the
same as Milner's, they would find that issue for the plaintiff;
ought they were not the same as Milner's, for the
- were at liberty to find that issue for the
hp det.ndsint did not us. any pipes, tubes,
ess was substan-

ned effeei-Oehamtleel
and material kept hur,