Star.
London, England, 1829-06-08 00:00:00

,~

LAW INTELLIGESCE

COVET OF KING'S BENCH, hors 6. "
FSLTON to. ORXAVES AND ANOTHSR.
The ATTORNST:ZENERAL (with whom were Messrs.
Baourstrass and Rome) stated that this was an action
to recover compensation in damages from the defend-
ants, for having infringed the plaintiff's patent. Theplain-
tiff invented a new and very ingenious and useful machine
for sharpening knives, scissors, and razors, and other cut-
ting instruments, and in June, 1827, took out a patent for
it, which, with the specifie'ation, was enrolled on theist of
August in the same year. This was certainly a very
simple machine, the importance of which depended on
its being of constant and daily convenience and utility.
A great number of men had occasion to use a razor
once a day, and many ladies had almost daily occasion
• to use scissors. and many of both sexes had occasion to
use knives and forks everyday ; and, therefore, a ma-
chine of this kind, by which the most unskilful persons
could sharpen these instruments with the greatest ease
and precision, was an invention of no slight importanie.
The natural consequence was, •that whenever the
machine was made known, great numbers of them
were sold, particularly those for sharpening table knives,
which invariably gave complete satisfaction; and this
great demand and rapid sale was, no doubt, the temp-
' cation which led the defendants to make a machine,
varying a little in form, but exactly on the same prin-
ciple, and for the same purpose, as that of the plaintiff,
thereby, infringing his patent, and depriving him of the
advantage to which the invention of -so ingenious and
useful a machine well entitled him. This case was
selected from a number of others, in hopes that a Jury
would give such damages as would prove an effectual
restraint on these practices. The patent and specifica-
tion were then put in, and the material parts read. Two
specimens of the machine were produced—the ohe cal-
culated for the sharpening of knives, the other for the
sharpening of scissors—these were formed of steel.
Another specimen was produced formed of stone. One
gnat 'advantage of the knife machine was, that it
sharpened both sides of the knife equally without any
risk of turning the edge.
Messsrs. Parkins and Smith, cutlers, stated• that the
invention was perfectly new; they had never seen any
thing like it before; it completely answered the purpose,
and they had sold great numbers of the machines, and
*Sever knew 'an instance in which it bad not given entire
satisfaction ; some difference was required in the form
and material of the machine, according to the descrip-
tion of the instrument to be sharpened; two of the ma-
chines produced were made of steel, another was made
of a stone called Charley Forest.—(Lord TENTERDEN
A very good name, and one which ought to be remem-
bered.)—The meaning probably was Charlwood Forest.
it was a good stone for sharpening knives, but bad to
sharpen a razor ; the machine would require to be made
of hone; tl:e machine in most common use was that for
• sharpening table knives, but the principle of all was the
. same; a 'difference of construction was required between
themachines for sharpening knives and those for scissors.
Mr. F. WILLIAMS. before the case went further, took
an objection to the action, on the ground that there was
a variance between the patent and the specification—
.• the words in the patent being "a machine for sharpen-
.' log knives..sci.sors, razors, and other cutting instru-
: meets;" whereas, in the specification, the worsts "scis-
sors and razors" were omitted, and only knives and
. 'other cutting instruments mentioned. He also objected
• .teat the same machine would not answer for sharpening
knives,*sciss, rs, and razors.
The ATTORNILY GENERAL, NIr.'BROUGRASts and Mr.
Roche were heard in answer, and then
- Lord TENTTRDIN observed, that it sometimes hap-
pened the inventors of very ingi mono patent machines
Ipst the benefit of their patents by a defect in the spe-
cification. This was to be regretted; but still it was
necessary that the specification she uhf be clear and
• specific to support a patent right. Now this machine
• was described in the patent as one adapted for the
sharpening of knives, scissors, &c. but in the specifi-
cation it was assumed that the same instrument, made
with double rollers, would answer both for knives and
scissors; and there was nothing to indicate. that; for the
purpose of sharpening scissors, it was necessary that one
of the cylinders should be round and the other flat,
smooth, and plain ; yet the evidence was.-that this latter
form of the machine was necessary with respect to
scissors, which would be destroyed by the use of the
same form of instrument which answered for sharpen-
' log knives; this he considered as a fatal defect,and the
plaintiff must be called.—Plaintiff nonsuited.
BOTTINOS V. FIRST AND ANOTRSR.
.. Mr. EARLE stated that this was an action for compels-
station in damages for an illegal and excessive distress.
The plaintiff resided at Chelsea. where his wife carried
On the business of a dress-maker in a house belonging
to Fishy. The rent was 281. per annum. The ground
*Of complaint was, that the defendant bad distrained for
more than was due to bim ; that even if the sum which
-fie claimed (about 171) had been due to him, the distress
which he took wasescessive, he having taken goods that
were well worth 641. that the defendant had kept the
goods tees long without using due diligence to sell to the
best advantage ; that /I u thpht ies, the landlord's broker,
;nit in several :snicks of his own goods upon the premises
along-with those of the plaintiff; that when the sale took
place the plaintiff's goods were sold for about 191. and that
most of the articles were bought in by the broker, to
whom the auctioneer knocked down the article when-
ever he offered, without waiting for a higher bidding.
When he should have proved these facts, he trusted
the Jury would give the plaintiff ample compeosa-
- tiers. He had a document, however, which would base
much formal proof: the plaintiff had brought his acticn
in the Palace Court, and the defendants suffered judg.
meat to go by default, which was an ado ission ors re-
cord that the verdict must be against theni. But they
removed the action into thisCourt,where it was probable,
they hoped, that the plaintiff was not in circumstances
to proceed.
John Churchill Hewlet produced the tecord from the
Palace Court.
Several witnesses were then examined, who said that
the valuation put on the plaintiff's goods was too low,
and that the auctioneer :told them off in a careless and
hurried manger; but the evidence hiled as to the
cLarge of the landlord's having distraiucd for a greater
.sum than was due.
Mr. POLLOCIC (with whom was Mr: PLATT) called
several witnesses, who swore that the valuation and sale
were fair; that the plaintiff and his wife desired that a
sale should take place, and that a great part of the
goods did not belong to the plaintiff.
Lord TENTERDIDI asked the plaintiff's Counsel whe-
ther he would consent to withdraw a Juror ?
Mr. EARLS said, that he could not exercise his dis-
or von against the positive injunction of his client. He
then addressed the Jury, and contended that the weight
of the evidence was in favour of the plaintiff.
The Jury found for the defendants.
DEBTS OF HONOUR.
Sir Godfrey Welptes' brought an action against a