The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-05-04 00:00:00

It material; ami
ie terms of

e motion

PRES

IVATION OF BOOKS, DEEDS, &c.,
FROM FIRE.

QUEEN S BENCH', JUNE 23RD, 1851, BEFORE

RD CAMPBELL AND A SPECIAL JURY.
MILNER v. HARRISON.
selling Tann's safes and Boxes, and advertising
sso;.e proprietor of 7'ann's Patent Safes, Chests, 're.)

trial was instituted for the purpose of vindicating
re right, on the part of the Plaintiff, of applying
materials evolving moisture on the application of
her with ether absorbent materials, within the
f Boxes, Safes, or Depositories, calculated to per-
harnhers and contents of the safes with moisture
when heated by fire, thereby preserving the nape

M. Chambers, Q.C.,
and Sir F. The-
for the Defen-

Mr. Crowder, Q.C., Air
-, appeared for the Plaintiff
lee, Q.C., and Mr. Hindmarsh,

%vas given by Mr. Grantham, of Liverpool, Civil Engineer and
Surveyor •f Steamers to the Board of Trade; Mr. Samuel
Woods, jun., of London, formerly of Livernnrd Mr. J. W.

Pitcher, 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 nse—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 lie had seen used by the Plaintiff's firm.
...casoct a iriny veienuant, wlio
Called several witnesses, hut whose testimony, on cross-exami-
nation, completely established the Plaintiff's case. Mr.
Crowder finally addressed the Jury on the facts, and
Lord CANIPBF.LL then summed up. This, Le said, was an
action for the infringement of a patent granted on the 2Gth of
August, 1840, for certain alleged improvements in boxes for
the protection. of papers from fire. The deferdant set up
several defences, which lie would not take exactly in their
vroper 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 be 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 lead 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 t

and if -11

tiff to show that this was a new invention,
save prima facie evidence that it was so, the defen-
'-ave to show that it was not. Now there was cer-
evidence on the part of the plaintiff to show that
It was for them to say whether it was properly an
the protection of papers against fire. The papers
in an iron box, having cases enclosed, leaving
ween t' e two cases, and the object was to have
ce that would give out a moisture upon the appli-
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.

dant would

tainly strc

it was new

were locked
chambers be

troduced of hawing 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 Jarr'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
' )1-s in the inner case. but neither seemed to have
f.st contemplation of any liquid, as their object
---e substances as dry as possible, but had no
which was to be condensed_ into_ steam to

had the sli
was rather
notion of a

moisten the p.apers in the inner case. They had heard tCe
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 his patent. 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
rhat 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
tad been astonished to find such strong evidence of its useful-

rests. Ur

action of fire
of steam, th
moist. It a•
ventien,bv‘

notwitlistind
house. Alth4

not useful, 1.

was to rais
for them al
in point of 1
He though
fendant did

whether

defendant h
that respect
seminaries
they would
Tann'spatel
went, for it
Milner's;
boxes, he c(
specificatioi
by Tann we